Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If you're really intent on doing something about this, my inclination
> >> would be to get rid of the dependence on DLNewElem altogether. Add
> >> a Dlelem field to the Backend struct and use DLInitElem (compare
> >> the way catcac
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you're really intent on doing something about this, my inclination
>> would be to get rid of the dependence on DLNewElem altogether. Add
>> a Dlelem field to the Backend struct and use DLInitElem (compare
>> the way catcache uses that module).
> Hmm
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you're really intent on doing something about this, my inclination
>> would be to get rid of the dependence on DLNewElem altogether. Add
>> a Dlelem field to the Backend struct and use DLInitElem (compare
>> the way catcache uses that module).
> Hmm
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I guess I need to point out that those ereport calls already pose a far
> >> more substantial risk of palloc failure than the DLNewElem represents.
>
> > Hmm, do they? I mean, don't they use ErrorContext, which is supposed to
> >
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I guess I need to point out that those ereport calls already pose a far
>> more substantial risk of palloc failure than the DLNewElem represents.
> Hmm, do they? I mean, don't they use ErrorContext, which is supposed to
> be preallocated?
Well, we'd l
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I think a patch to solve this is as simple as the attached.
>
> I guess I need to point out that those ereport calls already pose a far
> more substantial risk of palloc failure than the DLNewElem represents.
Hmm, do they? I mean, don't they use Erro
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I think a patch to solve this is as simple as the attached.
I guess I need to point out that those ereport calls already pose a far
more substantial risk of palloc failure than the DLNewElem represents.
You seem to have forgotten about releasing the DLElem if the fork fa
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Some time ago I noticed that in postmaster.c there's a corner case which
> > probably causes postmaster to exit in out-of-memory condition. See
> > BackendStartup, near the bottom, there's a call to DLNewElem(). The
> > problem is that this function c
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Some time ago I noticed that in postmaster.c there's a corner case which
> probably causes postmaster to exit in out-of-memory condition. See
> BackendStartup, near the bottom, there's a call to DLNewElem(). The
> problem is that this function calls palloc() and thus can
Hi,
Some time ago I noticed that in postmaster.c there's a corner case which
probably causes postmaster to exit in out-of-memory condition. See
BackendStartup, near the bottom, there's a call to DLNewElem(). The
problem is that this function calls palloc() and thus can elog(ERROR) on
OOM, but po
10 matches
Mail list logo