On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree that the correct handling of this particular case is to mark it
> as not-a-bug. We have better things to do.
+1
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscri
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, if you find this to be good code cleanup on its own merits,
> you have a commit bit, you can go commit it. I'm just saying that
> Coverity is not a good judge of code readability and even less of
> a judge of likely future changes. So we
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree that the correct handling of this particular case is to mark it
>> as not-a-bug. We have better things to do.
> Well, I find that a disappointing conclusion, but I'm not going to
> spend a lot of time arguing aga
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> It takes about three seconds to mark it as ignored which will hide it
>>> going forward.
>
>> So what? That doesn't help if someone *else* sets up a Coverity run
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> It takes about three seconds to mark it as ignored which will hide it
>> going forward.
> So what? That doesn't help if someone *else* sets up a Coverity run
> on this code base, or if say Salesforce sets up such a r
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-06-26 09:44:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't mind committing patches for this kind of thing if it makes the
>> Coverity reports easier to deal with, which I gather that it does.
>
> It takes about three seconds to mark it as ig
On 2015-06-26 09:44:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't mind committing patches for this kind of thing if it makes the
> Coverity reports easier to deal with, which I gather that it does.
It takes about three seconds to mark it as ignored which will hide it
going forward.
--
Sent via pgsql-h
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-06-26 22:03:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Coverity is nitpickingly pointing out the following thing:
>> --- a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
>> +++ b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
>> @@ -402,8 +402,7 @@ get_contro
Hi,
On 2015-06-26 22:03:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Coverity is nitpickingly pointing out the following thing:
> --- a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
> +++ b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
> @@ -402,8 +402,7 @@ get_control_data(ClusterInfo *cluster, bool live_check)
>
Hi,
Coverity is nitpickingly pointing out the following thing:
--- a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
+++ b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
@@ -402,8 +402,7 @@ get_control_data(ClusterInfo *cluster, bool live_check)
}
}
- if (output)
- pclose(output);
10 matches
Mail list logo
