Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:58:17 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support
Message-ID: <20160405205817.GA366676@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <jlgfuuzstks.fsf@thriss.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

> > It seems to me that the right solution for this is to create a new
> > memory context which is a direct child of TopMemoryContext, so that
> > palloc can be used, and so that it can be reset separately, and that it
> > doesn't suffer from resets of other contexts.  (I think Michael's point
> > is that if those chunks were it a context of their own, you wouldn't
> > need the pfrees but a MemCxtReset would be enough.)
> 
> Hmm, that's also an option.  I read Michael's point as arguing for
> calloc()/free() rather than a new context, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, if you weren't using stringinfos that would be an option, but
since you are I think that's out of the question.

> A question, though: it it valuable for the context to be reset()able
> separately?  If there were more than just these two buffers going into
> it, I could see it being convenient - especially if it were for
> different encryption types, for instance - but it seems like it would be
> overkill?

If two buffers is all, I think retail pfrees are fine.  I haven't
actually read the patch.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers