From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: NULL checks of deferenced pointers in picksplit method of intarray |
Date: | 2015-02-16 23:36:09 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQJF_aSji_N5kPjwf2dLq63kWEL1E+nCVkePG1d8Mx4Ow@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Coverity is pointing out that _int_split.c has unnecessary checks
>> for deferenced pointers in 5 places.
>
>> Attached is a patch to adjust those things.
>
> Pushed. Thanks!
Thanks.
>> Also, as far as I understood from this code, no elements
>> manipulated are NULL, perhaps this is worth an assertion?
>
> I'm not clear where you were thinking of, but anyway that seemed
> like a separate patch if we're going to do it, so I went ahead with
> pushing the issued Coverity flagged. The arguments to the function
> don't need such a check because the function is exposed to SQL with
> the STRICT option (but you probably already knew that). While
> reviewing the safety of this patch the only place that I ran across
> that I felt maybe deserved an assertion was that n >= 0 near the
> top of copy_intArrayType(), but that seems marginal.
Yeah, we don't do that for the other STRICT functions, let's not do it then.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-02-16 23:50:22 | Re: Commit fest 2015-12 enters money time |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-02-16 23:34:04 | Re: Commit fest 2015-12 enters money time |