Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
I must be blind. The hooks->noticeRec == NULL case is handled first
thing in pgInternalNotice (returns doing nothing). So we wouldn't
segfault and we wouldn't emit any warning either!
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2006-05-28 17:53:35|
|Subject: COPY FROM view|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-05-28 17:40:09|
|Subject: Re: Error in recent pg_dump change (coverity)|