<br /><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Simon Riggs <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:simon@2ndquadrant.com">simon@2ndquadrant.com</a>></span>wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br /><div
class="Ih2E3d"><br/></div>The malloc was part of the existing code, explained by comments.<br /><font
color="#888888"><br/></font></blockquote></div><br />Oh I see. But I don't see any explanations for using malloc
insteadof palloc. Not that the current patch is responsible for this, I am wondering why its done that way and if we
arefreeing the malloced memory at all ?<br /><br />malloc is used at another place in a new code. Although it seems
thatthe allocation happens just once, please check if its better to use palloc there.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Pavan<br
clear="all"/><br />-- <br />Pavan Deolasee<br /> EnterpriseDB <a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/>
