On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:11:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Are we OK with the Coverity reports now?
Well, you can see for yourself:
http://scan.coverity.com/
We're down from the near-300 to just 60. They've unfixed the ereport()
issue but it was fixed for two days which allowed me to is
Are we OK with the Coverity reports now?
---
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:12:51AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >I havn't been able to find any more s
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:12:51AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >I havn't been able to find any more serious issues in the Coverity
> > >report, now that they've fixed the ereport() issue. A number of the
> > >issues it co
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:12:51AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >I havn't been able to find any more serious issues in the Coverity
> >report, now that they've fixed the ereport() issue. A number of the
> >issues it complains about are things we already Assert() for. For the
> >rest, as
I havn't been able to find any more serious issues in the Coverity
report, now that they've fixed the ereport() issue. A number of the
issues it complains about are things we already Assert() for. For the
rest, as long as the following assumptions are true we're done (well,
except for ECPG). I thi
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
>> src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c function like_selectivity
>> Assume this function is never called with a zero length bytea
>> constant. It just looks wierd to set patt to NULL only to Assert() it
>> three lines down.
> This may be a real bug --- I'm not sure
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> randomAccess is set if EXEC_FLAG_BACKWARD is set, but does that
> guarentee it will never be tried?
If it were tried, that would be caller error. Think of it as an Assert ;-)
> src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c function inheritance_planner=20
> If the b
I havn't been able to find any more serious issues in the Coverity
report, now that they've fixed the ereport() issue. A number of the
issues it complains about are things we already Assert() for. For the
rest, as long as the following assumptions are true we're done (well,
except for ECPG). I thin
