Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> I've just realized that there is also malloc-compatible ShmemAlloc(). >> Apparently it's return value sometimes is not properly checked too. See >> attachment.
> The funny part here is that ProcGlobal->allProcs is actually handled, > but not the two others. Well yes, you are right, we really need to > fail on FATAL for all of them if ShmemAlloc returns NULL as they > involve the shmem initialization at postmaster startup. A quick scan says that most callers are failing to check at all, several more just have duplicate check-and-immediately-elog code, and only one has got anything useful to do besides throwing error. I think what we ought to do is make ShmemAlloc act like palloc (ie throw error not return NULL), and remove the duplicated error checks. For the one caller that that would be bad for, we could invent something like ShmemAllocNoError, or ShmemAllocExtended with a no_error flag, or whatever other new API suits your fancy. But as-is, it's just inviting more errors-of-omission like the large number that already exist. I think people are conditioned by palloc to expect such functions to throw error. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers