Small tidyup for commit d41a178b, part II.
Further to commit 6a9229da, checking for NULL is now redundant. An "out
of memory" error would have been thrown already by palloc() and treated
as FATAL, so we can delete a few more lines.
Back-patch to all releases, like those other commits.
Reported-
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b, part II.
Further to commit 6a9229da, checking for NULL is now redundant. An "out
of memory" error would have been thrown already by palloc() and treated
as FATAL, so we can delete a few more lines.
Back-patch to all releases, like those other commits.
Reported-
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b, part II.
Further to commit 6a9229da, checking for NULL is now redundant. An "out
of memory" error would have been thrown already by palloc() and treated
as FATAL, so we can delete a few more lines.
Back-patch to all releases, like those other commits.
Reported-
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b, part II.
Further to commit 6a9229da, checking for NULL is now redundant. An "out
of memory" error would have been thrown already by palloc() and treated
as FATAL, so we can delete a few more lines.
Back-patch to all releases, like those other commits.
Reported-
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b, part II.
Further to commit 6a9229da, checking for NULL is now redundant. An "out
of memory" error would have been thrown already by palloc() and treated
as FATAL, so we can delete a few more lines.
Back-patch to all releases, like those other commits.
Reported-
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b, part II.
Further to commit 6a9229da, checking for NULL is now redundant. An "out
of memory" error would have been thrown already by palloc() and treated
as FATAL, so we can delete a few more lines.
Back-patch to all releases, like those other commits.
Reported-
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 1:36 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
> > A comment was left behind claiming that we needed to use malloc() rather
> > than palloc() because the corresponding free would run in another
> > thread, but that's not true anymore.
Thomas Munro writes:
> Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
> A comment was left behind claiming that we needed to use malloc() rather
> than palloc() because the corresponding free would run in another
> thread, but that's not true anymore. Remove that comment. And, with
> the reason being gone, w
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
A comment was left behind claiming that we needed to use malloc() rather
than palloc() because the corresponding free would run in another
thread, but that's not true anymore. Remove that comment. And, with
the reason being gone, we might as well actually use pa
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
A comment was left behind claiming that we needed to use malloc() rather
than palloc() because the corresponding free would run in another
thread, but that's not true anymore. Remove that comment. And, with
the reason being gone, we might as well actually use pa
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
A comment was left behind claiming that we needed to use malloc() rather
than palloc() because the corresponding free would run in another
thread, but that's not true anymore. Remove that comment. And, with
the reason being gone, we might as well actually use pa
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
A comment was left behind claiming that we needed to use malloc() rather
than palloc() because the corresponding free would run in another
thread, but that's not true anymore. Remove that comment. And, with
the reason being gone, we might as well actually use pa
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
A comment was left behind claiming that we needed to use malloc() rather
than palloc() because the corresponding free would run in another
thread, but that's not true anymore. Remove that comment. And, with
the reason being gone, we might as well actually use pa
Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
A comment was left behind claiming that we needed to use malloc() rather
than palloc() because the corresponding free would run in another
thread, but that's not true anymore. Remove that comment. And, with
the reason being gone, we might as well actually use pa
14 matches
Mail list logo
