Re: Google SoC--Idea Request

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 11:56:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > About the only thing in the backend I found interesting was this:
> > src/backend/utils/hash/dynahash.c function hash_create
>
> I wonder if we shouldn't just remove the hash_destroy calls in
> hash_create's failure paths. hash_destroy is explicitly not gonna
> work on a shared-memory hashtable, and in all other cases I'd expect
> that any already-allocated table structure will be in a palloc context
> that will get cleaned up during error recovery.

[re: failure to create hash in shared memory causes crash]

Any thoughts on this? Make it a TODO item, document it, or simply
ignore it?

Have a nicy day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.