Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support
Date
Msg-id 20160405205817.GA366676@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support  (Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support
List pgsql-hackers
Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

> > It seems to me that the right solution for this is to create a new
> > memory context which is a direct child of TopMemoryContext, so that
> > palloc can be used, and so that it can be reset separately, and that it
> > doesn't suffer from resets of other contexts.  (I think Michael's point
> > is that if those chunks were it a context of their own, you wouldn't
> > need the pfrees but a MemCxtReset would be enough.)
> 
> Hmm, that's also an option.  I read Michael's point as arguing for
> calloc()/free() rather than a new context, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, if you weren't using stringinfos that would be an option, but
since you are I think that's out of the question.

> A question, though: it it valuable for the context to be reset()able
> separately?  If there were more than just these two buffers going into
> it, I could see it being convenient - especially if it were for
> different encryption types, for instance - but it seems like it would be
> overkill?

If two buffers is all, I think retail pfrees are fine.  I haven't
actually read the patch.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support