Re: Set of patch to address several Coverity issues

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Set of patch to address several Coverity issues
Date: 2015-07-09 13:57:25
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQb6xy_wZKRzZv2HUs20K8T7rVwE3Dp=2CScRPf-MyTLQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> In any case, we are going to need at least (void) in front of those calls.
>
> We're "needing" nothing of the sort.

I don't really understand your reluctance here. As one example, see
c831593 where similar fixes are done and even back-patched.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-07-09 14:08:52 Re: Set of patch to address several Coverity issues
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-07-09 13:56:21 Re: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2015 proposal: Improve the performance of “ALTER TABLE .. SET LOGGED / UNLOGGED” statement