Tom Lane escribió:

> One thing I was wondering about earlier today is whether libxml isn't
> expecting NULL-return-on-failure from the malloc-substitute routine.
> If we take control away from it unexpectedly, I wouldn't be a bit
> surprised if its data structures are left corrupt.  This might lead to
> failures during cleanup.

Hmm, this is a very good point.  I quick look at the source shows that
they are not very consistent on its own checking for memory allocation
errors.  For example, see a bug I just reported:

The problem is that many routines look like this:

xmlXPathNewNodeSet(xmlNodePtr val) {
    xmlXPathObjectPtr ret;

    ret = (xmlXPathObjectPtr) xmlMalloc(sizeof(xmlXPathObject));
    if (ret == NULL) {
        xmlXPathErrMemory(NULL, "creating nodeset\n");

and others would call this code and then happily use the return value
without checking for null.

Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to