Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hm. But I think we'd *like* it to segfault; the idea is to make the
> >> user's programming error as obvious as possible. Is it worth the
> >> trouble to just zero out the pointer members of the PGresult?
> > There are only five of them; four need to be zeroed out.
> Works for me. Please commit, as I'm about to do some further work in
> those files and would rather not have to merge ...
Done. They were actually four, not five. The one I mistakingly though
was one was the notice processor hooks.
The case Martijn was saying would be warned about by the memset
approach, setting ntuples to 0, would actually be handled as a segfault,
because functions like check_field_number actually follow
res.noticeHooks pointer! ISTM we would just segfault at that point.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-05-28 17:40:09|
|Subject: Re: Error in recent pg_dump change (coverity)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-05-28 17:07:06|
|Subject: Re: Error in recent pg_dump change (coverity) |