Em sex., 11 de abr. de 2025 às 08:27, Ranier Vilela
escreveu:
> Thanks Michael, for looking at this.
>
>
> Em sex., 11 de abr. de 2025 às 02:09, Michael Paquier
> escreveu:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 03:10:02PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>> > While it is arguable that this is a false warning,
Em sex., 11 de abr. de 2025 às 02:37, Tom Lane escreveu:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 03:10:02PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> >> While it is arguable that this is a false warning, there is a benefit in
> >> moving the initialization of the string buffer, silencing the w
Thanks Michael, for looking at this.
Em sex., 11 de abr. de 2025 às 02:09, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 03:10:02PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > While it is arguable that this is a false warning, there is a benefit in
> > moving the initialization of the string buffer,
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 03:10:02PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>> While it is arguable that this is a false warning, there is a benefit in
>> moving the initialization of the string buffer, silencing the warnings that
>> are presented in this case.
>>
>> 1. pg_overexplai
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 03:10:02PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> While it is arguable that this is a false warning, there is a benefit in
> moving the initialization of the string buffer, silencing the warnings that
> are presented in this case.
>
> 1. pg_overexplain.c
> 2. ruleutils.c
These code
Hi.
Per Coverity.
Coverity has some alerts about resource leaks.
I think that is good silence.
While it is arguable that this is a false warning, there is a benefit in
moving the initialization of the string buffer, silencing the warnings that
are presented in this case.
1. pg_overexplain.c
2.
