Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API
Date
Msg-id 2524580.1663131186@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> It kind of feels that the argument order should be pointer, oldsize, size.
> It feels even more strongly that people will get the ordering wrong,
> whichever we choose.  Is there a way to make that more bulletproof?

Actually ... an even-more-terrifyingly-plausible misuse is that the
supplied oldsize is different from the actual previous allocation.
We should try to check that.  In MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING builds
it should be possible to assert that oldsize == requested_size.
We don't have that data if !MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING, but we could
at least assert that oldsize <= allocated chunk size.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: failing to build preproc.c on solaris with sun studio
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup's --gzip switch misbehaves