On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Thomas Munro <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thomas Munro <[email protected]> writes: >>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Robert Haas <[email protected]> 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.
Oops, that had a typo in a comment. Here's a better one. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
dsa-extended-v3.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
