On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:09:31PM +0100, David Geier wrote: > I've changed all code to use the "new" palloc_object(), palloc_array(), > palloc0_object(), palloc0_array, repalloc_array() and repalloc0_array() > macros. This makes the code more readable and more consistent. > > The patch is pretty big but potential merge conflicts should be easy to > resolve. If preferred, I can also further split up the patch, e.g. > directory by directory or high impact files first.
The backpatching extra-pain argument indeed comes into mind first when it comes to such changes, but perhaps we should just bite the bullet and encourage the new allocation styles across the tree, as you are doing here. I'm not completely sure if it would make sense to split things up, if we do I would do it on a subdirectory basis like to suggest, perhaps, like contrib/, src/backend/executor/, etc. to balance the blast damage. Did you use some kind of automation to find all of these? If yes, what did you use? > The patch is passing "meson test" and I've additionally wrote a script > that parses the patch file and verifies that every two corresponding + > and - lines match (e.g. palloc0() replaced by palloc0_array() or > palloc0_object(), the same for palloc() and repalloc(), additionally > some checks to make sure the conversion to the _array() variant is > correct). It may be an idea to share that as well, so as your checks could be replicated rather than partially re-guessed. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
