On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Hmm, I understood Tom to be opposing the idea of a palloc variant that >> returns NULL on failure, and I understand you to be supporting it. >> But maybe I'm confused. > > Your understanding seems correct to me. I was just saying that your > description of Tom's argument to dislike the idea seemed at odds with > what he was actually saying.
OK, that may be. I'm not sure. >> Anyway, I support it. I agree that there are >> systems (or circumstances?) where malloc is going to succeed and then >> the world will blow up later on anyway, but I don't think that means >> that an out-of-memory error is the only sensible response to a palloc >> failure; returning NULL seems like a sometimes-useful alternative. >> >> I do think that "safe" is the wrong suffix. Maybe palloc_soft_fail() >> or palloc_null() or palloc_no_oom() or palloc_unsafe(). > > I liked palloc_noerror() better myself FWIW. I don't care for noerror() because it probably still will error in some circumstances; just not for OOM. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
