Em sex., 12 de fev. de 2021 às 03:28, Kyotaro Horiguchi < [email protected]> escreveu:
> At Wed, 10 Feb 2021 19:54:46 -0300, Ranier Vilela <[email protected]> > wrote in > > Hi, > > > > Per Coverity. > > > > The functions ExecGetInsertedCols and ExecGetUpdatedCols at ExecUtils.c > > only are safe to call if the variable "ri_RangeTableIndex" is != 0. > > > > Otherwise a possible Dereference after null check (FORWARD_NULL) can be > > raised. > > As it turns out, it's a false positive. And perhaps we don't want to > take action just to satisfy the static code analyzer. > > > The coment in ExecGetInsertedCols says: > > > /* > > * The columns are stored in the range table entry. If this ResultRelInfo > > * doesn't have an entry in the range table (i.e. if it represents a > > * partition routing target), fetch the parent's RTE and map the columns > > * to the order they are in the partition. > > */ > > if (relinfo->ri_RangeTableIndex != 0) > > { > > This means that any one of the two is always usable here. AFAICS, > actually, ri_RangeTableIndex is non-zero for partitioned (=leaf) and > non-partitoned relations and ri_RootResultRelInfo is non-null for > partitioned (parent or intermediate) relations (since they don't have > a coressponding range table entry). > > The only cases where both are 0 and NULL are trigger-use, which is > unrelated to the code path. > This is a case where it would be worth an assertion. What do you think? regards, Ranier Vilela
