Horton

Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-09-14T04:24:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 12.09.22 15:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On 09.09.22 22:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think serious consideration should be given to back-patching the
>>> 0001 part (that is, addition of the macros).  Otherwise we'll have
>>> to remember not to use these macros in code intended for back-patch,
>>> and that'll be mighty annoying once we are used to them.
> 
>> Yes, the 0001 patch is kept separate so that we can do that when we feel
>> the time is right.
> 
> I think the right time is now, or at least as soon as you're
> satisfied that the buildfarm is happy.

This has been done.

Commits

  1. Add repalloc0 and repalloc0_array

  2. Expand palloc/pg_malloc API for more type safety

  3. Assorted examples of expanded type-safer palloc/pg_malloc API