Re: Error in recent pg_dump change (coverity)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: 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 17:07:06
Message-ID: 18285.1148836026@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-05-28 17:38:32 Re: Error in recent pg_dump change (coverity)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-05-28 16:47:35 Re: Error in recent pg_dump change (coverity)