On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> wrote: > And if I already propose a solution even if it is not the best, it is much > better than being silent and missing the opportunity to fix a bug.
The problem with that theory is that you're not creating any value over simply running Coverity directly. Your patches don't seem to be based on any real analysis beyond what makes Coverity stop complaining, which is not helpful. For example, the nbtree.c/btvacuumpage() issue you reported yesterday involved a NULL pointer dereference, but if the code path in question ever dereferenced the NULL pointer then it would be fundamentally wrong in many other ways, probably leading to data corruption. The fix that you posted obviously completely missed the point. Even when Coverity identifies a serious issue, it usually needs to be carefully interpreted. Anybody can run Coverity. Many of us do. Maybe the approach you've taken would have had a noticeable benefit if you were not dealing with a codebase that has already been subject to lots of triage of Coverity issues. But that's not the case. > Ridiculous is your lack of education. This isn't helping you at all. -- Peter Geoghegan
