On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I'm thinking we should change this to look more like the >>>> MemoryContextAlloc interface. > >>> +1 > >> Maybe something like the attached? I didn't add DSA_ALLOC_HUGE >> because there is currently no limit on allocation size (other than the >> limit on total size which you can set with dsa_set_size_limit, but >> that causes allocation failure, not a separate kind of error). Should >> there be a per-allocation size sanity check of 1GB like palloc? > > I think it's not a bad idea. It could help catch faulty allocation > requests (since I'd bet very few call sites actually intend to allocate > gigabytes in one go), and as Robert says, there is substantial value in > the semantics being as much like palloc() as possible. People are > likely to assume that even if it isn't true.
Agreed. Here's a patch like that. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers