On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 3:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> guc_malloc's behavior varies depending on elevel. It's *not*
> equivalent to palloc.
Right, sorry -- a better way for me to ask the question:
I'm currently hardcoding an elevel of ERROR on the new guc_strdup()s,
because that seems to be a common case for the check hooks. If that's
okay, is there any reason not to use palloc() semantics for
pg_clean_ascii()? (And if it's not okay, why?)
--Jacob