| From: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Coverity reports looking good |
| Date: | 2006-08-20 17:24:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20060820172446.GA30039@1 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:52:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, if Coverity's idea of good programming practice is that every
> program must explicitly free everything it ever malloced before it
> terminates, then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. The
I don't think Coverity even knows how long a program may run.
But while I agree that freeing all memory is not needed in a short
running program, I still think we should examine those reports because
they may show some real bugs. At least this is what happened to some
degree in ecpg.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes(at)jabber(dot)org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-20 17:32:29 | Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-08-20 17:21:19 | Re: pg_dump versus SERIAL, round N |