=?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?
http://archives.postgresql.org
