> On 24 Oct 2023, at 17:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> I do agree with this proposed change though:
>
>> - all the space that will be freed by .
>> + all the memory that will be freed by .
>
> +1, seems harmless.
I've pushed this part, skipping the rest.
--
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 24 Oct 2023, at 07:13, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>> The user does not benefit from knowing that libpq allocates some/all memory
>> using malloc(). Mentioning malloc() here has a few downsides, and almost no
>> benefits.
> I'm not entirely convinced that replacing
> On 24 Oct 2023, at 07:13, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> The user does not benefit from knowing that libpq allocates some/all memory
> using malloc(). Mentioning malloc() here has a few downsides, and almost no
> benefits.
I'm not entirely convinced that replacing "malloc" with "allocated on the
The commit message in the attached patch provides the reasoning, as follows:
The user does not benefit from knowing that libpq allocates some/all memory
using malloc(). Mentioning malloc() here has a few downsides, and almost no
benefits.
All the relevant mentions of malloc() are followed by an
