Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Per Coverity.
> CID 1635309: (#1 of 1): Unchecked return value (CHECKED_RETURN)
> 7. check_return: Calling window_gettupleslot without checking return value
> (as is done elsewhere 8 out of 9 times).
Yeah, the security team's Coverity instance just whined about that
too. But isn't the correct behavior simply "return -1"? It looks
to me like a failure should be interpreted as "row doesn't exist,
therefore it's not in frame".
What would be really useful is a test case that reaches this
condition. That would make it plain what to do.
regards, tom lane