I wrote:
> Hitoshi Harada <umi.tan...@gmail.com> writes:
>> If OOM happens during expand_table() in hash_search_with_hash_value()
>> for RelationCacheInsert,
> What OOM? expand_table is supposed to return without doing anything
> if it can't expand the table. If that's not happening, that's a bug
> in the hash code.
Oh, wait, I take that back --- the palloc-based allocator does throw
errors. I think that when that was designed, we were thinking that
palloc-based hash tables would be thrown away anyway after an error,
but of course that's not true for long-lived tables such as the relcache
hash table.
I'm not terribly comfortable with trying to use a PG_TRY block to catch
an OOM error - there are too many ways that could break, and this code
path is by definition not very testable. I think moving up the
expand_table action is probably the best bet. Will you submit a patch?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
