Re: Checking assumptions

Are we OK with the Coverity reports now?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> 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.
-- End of PGP section, PGP failed!

--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +