Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Error in recent pg_dump change (coverity)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Error in recent pg_dump change (coverity)
Date: 2006-05-28 17:42:41
Message-ID: 20060528174241.GD15766@surnet.cl (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 HerreraDate: 2006-05-28 17:53:35
Subject: COPY FROM view
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-05-28 17:40:09
Subject: Re: Error in recent pg_dump change (coverity)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group