Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 17:48, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > >> Something along the line of this? > > > > I think this is a seriously, seriously bad idea: > > > >> +#define strdup(x) pg_strdup(x) > >> +#define malloc(x) pg_malloc(x) > >> +#define calloc(x,y) pg_calloc(x, y) > >> +#define realloc(x,y) pg_realloc(x, y) > > > > as it will render the code unreadable to people expecting the normal > > behavior of these fundamental functions; not to mention break any > > call sites that have some other means of dealing with an alloc failure > > besides going belly-up. ?Please take the trouble to do > > s/malloc/pg_malloc/g and so on, instead. > > Ok, I'll try that approach. This seemed like a "nicer" approach, but I > think once written out, i agree with your arguments :-)
Where are we on this? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
