On 29 August 2017 at 05:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On 8/28/17 15:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... but it seems like you're giving up a lot of the possible uses if
> >> you don't make it apply uniformly. I admit I'm not sure how we'd handle
> >> the initial creation of a conn
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 8/28/17 15:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... but it seems like you're giving up a lot of the possible uses if
>> you don't make it apply uniformly. I admit I'm not sure how we'd handle
>> the initial creation of a connection object with a custom malloc. The
>> obvious solu
On 8/28/17 15:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... but it seems like you're giving up a lot of the possible uses if
> you don't make it apply uniformly. I admit I'm not sure how we'd handle
> the initial creation of a connection object with a custom malloc. The
> obvious solution of requiring the functions
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:11:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Aaron Patterson writes:
> > I would like to be able to configure libpq with custom malloc functions.
>
> I can see the potential value of this ...
>
> > This patch doesn't replace all malloc calls to the configured ones, just
> > the ma
Aaron Patterson writes:
> I would like to be able to configure libpq with custom malloc functions.
I can see the potential value of this ...
> This patch doesn't replace all malloc calls to the configured ones, just
> the mallocs related to creating result objects (which is what I'm
> concerned
