Em qui., 16 de jan. de 2025 às 05:07, Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> escreveu:
> On 16.01.25 02:12, Ranier Vilela wrote: > > Per Coverity. > > > > CID 1590024: (CHECKED_RETURN) > > Calling "pg_b64_encode" without checking return value (as is done > > elsewhere 8 out of 10 times). > > > > The function *pg_b64_encode* has in the comments: > > [0] "and -1 in the event of an error" > > > > So, the function can fail. > > All other calls check the return, In this case it could not be different. > > > > Fix by checking the return and reporting a message to the user, > > in case of failure. > > Thanks, fixed. (I changed the ereports to elogs, which is how other > call sites do it.) > Thank you. > > I also fixed a related problem in the pg_b64_decode() calls in libpq. > > Maybe we could put a pg_nodiscard attribute on pg_b64_encode() and > pg_b64_decode()? > +1 > > [0] I think the most correct would be *or* not *and* word? > > I think both are ok here. > Ok. best regards, Ranier Vilela
