Re: Checking assumptions

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 isolate then
and mark the false positives. More than 50% of those remaining are in
the ECPG code (primarily memory-leaks in error conditions which may or
may not be real). The remaining are in the src/bin directory, where the
issues are not that important.

The only one remaining in the backend I consider important was the one
relating to the failure to allocate a shared hash [1] which I posted
earlier.

We're now into the hard-slog part. For example, the fix to
ecpg/ecpglib/execute.c yesterday fixes the old problems but creates new
ones (nval leaked on last iteration of loop).

I'm still trying to find a way to export info on the memory leaks so
other people can look at them.

Have a nice day,
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-04/msg00732.php
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.