Re: Checking assumptions

On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:12:51AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >I havn't been able to find any more serious issues in the Coverity
> >report, now that they've fixed the ereport() issue. A number of the
> >issues it complains about are things we already Assert() for. For the
> >rest, as long as the following assumptions are true we're done (well,
> >except for ECPG). I think they are true but it's always good to check:
>
> Everytime someone does this, we fix everything except ECPG. Surely it's
> time we fixed ECPG as well?

I've got a patch (not by me) that should fix most of the issues.
However, we have no way to test for regressions. So, that's why I
suggested (elsewhere) someone get the ECPG regression stuff working so
we can apply fixes and check they don't break anything...

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.