On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 10:47 AM David Geier wrote:
> I intentionally tried to avoid any semantic changes but it's of course
> possible something slipped through by accident.
Do you expect the generated code to be identical? Is it?
On 28.11.2025 22:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Geier writes:
>> On 27.11.2025 00:03, Chao Li wrote:
>>> This is a large patch, I just take a quick look, and found that:
>>> - *phoned_word = palloc(sizeof(char) * strlen(word) + 1);
>>> + *phoned_word = palloc_array(char, strlen(wo
Hi Thomas!
On 27.11.2025 03:53, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 11:10 AM David Geier wrote:
>> I've changed all code to use the "new" palloc_object(), palloc_array(),
>> palloc0_object(), palloc0_array, repalloc_array() and repalloc0_array()
>> macros. This makes the code more reada
Hi Michael!
On 27.11.2025 01:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:09:31PM +0100, David Geier wrote:
>> I've changed all code to use the "new" palloc_object(), palloc_array(),
>> palloc0_object(), palloc0_array, repalloc_array() and repalloc0_array()
>> macros. This makes the cod
David Geier writes:
> On 27.11.2025 00:03, Chao Li wrote:
>> This is a large patch, I just take a quick look, and found that:
>> -*phoned_word = palloc(sizeof(char) * strlen(word) + 1);
>> +*phoned_word = palloc_array(char, strlen(word) + 1);
>> And
>> -params =
Hi!
Thanks for taking a look.
On 27.11.2025 00:03, Chao Li wrote:
>
> This is a large patch, I just take a quick look, and found that:
>
> ```
> - *phoned_word = palloc(sizeof(char) * strlen(word) + 1);
> + *phoned_word = palloc_array(char, strlen(word) + 1);
> ```
>
>
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 10:25:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm ... I had the same doubts as Michael about whether this change
> could possibly be worth the ensuing back-patching pain. But if
> it leads to an improvement in type-safety, that'd be a reason to
> take on the work.
Yeah, that sounds
Thomas Munro writes:
> This isn't a fully-baked thought, just a thought that occurred to me
> while looking into that: If palloc_object(Int128AggState) were smart
> enough to detect that alignof(T) > MAXALIGN and redirect to
> palloc_aligned(sizeof(T), alignof(T), ...) at compile time, then
> Int
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 11:10 AM David Geier wrote:
> I've changed all code to use the "new" palloc_object(), palloc_array(),
> palloc0_object(), palloc0_array, repalloc_array() and repalloc0_array()
> macros. This makes the code more readable and more consistent.
I wondered about this in the con
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:09:31PM +0100, David Geier wrote:
> I've changed all code to use the "new" palloc_object(), palloc_array(),
> palloc0_object(), palloc0_array, repalloc_array() and repalloc0_array()
> macros. This makes the code more readable and more consistent.
>
> The patch is pretty b
> On Nov 27, 2025, at 06:09, David Geier wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> I've changed all code to use the "new" palloc_object(), palloc_array(),
> palloc0_object(), palloc0_array, repalloc_array() and repalloc0_array()
> macros. This makes the code more readable and more consistent.
>
> The patch
11 matches
Mail list logo
