Return-Path: postarch
Received: by postgres.Berkeley.EDU (5.61/1.29)
	id AA13900; Mon, 10 Aug 92 09:26:19 -0700
Message-Id: <9208101626.AA13900@postgres.Berkeley.EDU>
From: postarch (Postgres Mailing Archive)
Subject: Re: on palloc and pfree
To: postgres@postgres.berkeley.edu
Sender: pg_adm@postgres.berkeley.edu
Reply-To: mer@postgres.berkeley.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jul 92 11:49:23 PDT."
             <9207311849.AA06421@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> 
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 92 09:26:13 PDT

you write:

> We are using postgres to support a hyperbase architecture
> that was formerly based upon a different dbms. Memory
> allocation in both the front-end and back-end programs
> was done through malloc() and free(). I am using now
> palloc() for the backend programs, but malloc() is
> still used in the front end. Should we expect conflicts
> resulting from these? 

No, in fact the palloc that front-end applications link is merely
a portability wrapper that just calls malloc.  The idea is to make
front-end functions easy to move into the backend.


Jeff Meredith
mer@postgres.berkeley.edu