From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org>
cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
In-reply-to: <E1pcvR8-003sWl-1i@gemulon.postgresql.org>
References: <E1pcvR8-003sWl-1i@gemulon.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Thu, 16 Mar 2023 21:47:02 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4040667.1679013388.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:36:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4040668.1679013388@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4040668.1679013388%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org> writes:
> Small tidyup for commit d41a178b.
> A comment was left behind claiming that we needed to use malloc() rather
> than palloc() because the corresponding free would run in another
> thread, but that's not true anymore.  Remove that comment.  And, with
> the reason being gone, we might as well actually use palloc().

Hm, doesn't the change to palloc make the following error check redundant?

	childinfo = palloc(sizeof(win32_deadchild_waitinfo));
-	if (!childinfo)
-		ereport(FATAL,
-				(errcode(ERRCODE_OUT_OF_MEMORY),
-				 errmsg("out of memory")));
-
	childinfo->procHandle = pi.hProcess;
	childinfo->procId = pi.dwProcessId;

			regards, tom lane