=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Zara?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The solution was to change the ulimit for data segment size.

Oh really ...

> Doesn't this mean that there is some place where the return value of
> malloc is not checked for null ?

You can see for yourself that the value *is* checked in the routine
that's at issue --- see line 520 in 8.2's aset.c.  Also the gdb'ing
you did showed that a nonzero value had been returned.

I think what you're looking at is a platform-specific bug in malloc().

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to