On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 3:15 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > guc_malloc's behavior varies depending on elevel. It's *not* > equivalent to palloc.
Right, sorry -- a better way for me to ask the question: I'm currently hardcoding an elevel of ERROR on the new guc_strdup()s, because that seems to be a common case for the check hooks. If that's okay, is there any reason not to use palloc() semantics for pg_clean_ascii()? (And if it's not okay, why?) --Jacob
