Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2da9038e-bf17-47d1-a5aa-83277c23f3fa@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? (Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 19/08/2025 23:49, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 15:10, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote: >> Here's a new set of patches, to disconnect on OOM instead of hanging or >> silently discarding messages: > > Code looks good. Som small nitpicks though. > > This change seems unnecessary, i.e. free(NULL) is a no-op > > - free(svname); > + if (svname) > + free(svname); And even more so, this is unreachable when svname == NULL. Thanks! > Small wording suggestion, maybe change this: > > The caller has already saved the error message in conn->errorMessage. > > to > > The caller should have already saved the error message in conn->errorMessage. > > or even > > The caller should have already saved the error message using > libpq_append_conn_error. I kept it as is, because we use similar wording in a few other places. Some places do write the message directly in conn->errorMessage without using libpq_append_conn_error. Pushed and backpatched to v18. I feel the OOM handling commit would be appropriate to backpatch further, but since it's pretty intricate code and we haven't gotten any complaints from the field, I only backpatched it to v18 for now. We can backpatch it further later if needed. Thanks for the original patch and the review! - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: