On 2015-01-16 12:09:25 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera > > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > >> I do think that "safe" is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail() > > >> or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe(). > > > > > > I liked palloc_noerror() better myself FWIW. > > > > I don't care for noerror() because it probably still will error in > > some circumstances; just not for OOM. > > Yes, but that seems fine to me. We have other functions with "noerror" > flags, and they can still fail under some circumstances -- just not if > the error is the most commonly considered scenario in which they fail.
We rely on palloc erroring out on large allocations in a couple places as a crosscheck. I don't think this argument holds much water. > The first example I found is LookupAggNameTypeNames(); there are many > more. I don't think this causes any confusion in practice. > > Another precendent we have is something like "missing_ok" as a flag name > in get_object_address() and other places; following that, we could have > this new function as "palloc_oom_ok" or something like that. But it > doesn't seem an improvement to me. (I'm pretty sure we all agree that > this must not be a flag to palloc but rather a new function.) > > Of all the ones you proposed above, the one I like the most is > palloc_no_oom, but IMO palloc_noerror is still better. Neither seem very accurate. no_oom isn't true because they actually can cause ooms. _noerror isn't true because they can error out - we e.g. rely on palloc erroring out when reading toast tuples (to detect invalid datum lengths) and during parsing of WAL as an additional defense. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers