Thread: pg_malloc0() instead of pg_malloc()+memset()

When reading another codepath, I happened to notice a few codepaths where we do
pg_malloc() immediately followed by a memset( ..  0, ..), without there being a
justification (that I can see) for not using pg_malloc0() instead. The attached
patch changes to pg_malloc0(), and passes make check.

cheers ./daniel

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 01:18:05PM +0000, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> When reading another codepath, I happened to notice a few codepaths where we do
> pg_malloc() immediately followed by a memset( ..  0, ..), without there being a
> justification (that I can see) for not using pg_malloc0() instead. The attached
> patch changes to pg_malloc0(), and passes make check.

If we simplify all of them (and that's not really a big deal), I have
spotted two extra places on top of what you noticed, one in gist.c
where ROTATEDIST is defined and a second one in tablefunc.c.

Thoughts?
--
Michael

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:00 AM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 01:18:05PM +0000, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > When reading another codepath, I happened to notice a few codepaths where we do
> > pg_malloc() immediately followed by a memset( .. 0, ..), without there being a
> > justification (that I can see) for not using pg_malloc0() instead. The attached
> > patch changes to pg_malloc0(), and passes make check.
>
> If we simplify all of them (and that's not really a big deal), I have
> spotted two extra places on top of what you noticed, one in gist.c
> where ROTATEDIST is defined and a second one in tablefunc.c.

Nice, I had missed them as I my eyes set on pg_malloc(). I've done another pass over
the codebase and I can't spot any other on top of the additional ones you found where
MemSet() in palloc0 is preferrable over memset().

cheers ./daniel