On 2015-07-09 22:57:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> In any case, we are going to need at least (void) in front of those calls.
> >
> > We're "needing" nothing of the sort.
>
> I don't really understand your reluctance here. As one exampl
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> In any case, we are going to need at least (void) in front of those calls.
>
> We're "needing" nothing of the sort.
I don't really understand your reluctance here. As one example, see
c831593 where similar fixes are done and even back-patched
On 2015-07-08 14:11:59 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Arg... I thought I triggered a couple of weeks a problem in this code
> path when desc->arg_arraytype[i] is InvalidOid with argtypes == NULL.
> Visibly I did something wrong...
>
> Speaking of which, shouldn't this thing at least use OidIsVali
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-07 16:17:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> 2) Potential pointer dereference in plperl.c, fixed by 0002 (sent
>> previously here =>
>> CAB7nPqRBCWAXTLw0yBR=bk94cryxu8twvxgyyoxautw08ok...@mail.gmail.com).
>> This is related to a ch
On 2015-07-07 16:17:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 2) Potential pointer dereference in plperl.c, fixed by 0002 (sent
> previously here =>
> CAB7nPqRBCWAXTLw0yBR=bk94cryxu8twvxgyyoxautw08ok...@mail.gmail.com).
> This is related to a change done by transforms. In short,
> plperl_call_perl_func@pl
Hi all,
As there have been complaints that it was hard to follow all the small
patches I have sent to fix the issues related to Coverity, here they
are gathered with patches for each one of them:
1) Missing return value checks in jsonfuncs.c, fixed by 0001 (send
here previously =>
cab7npqqcj3hu9p7
