| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, "noloader(at)gmail(dot)com" <noloader(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| Date: | 2013-11-13 00:11:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20131113001108.GA16066@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner escribió:
> These both seemed legitimate to me. Patch attached. Any
> objections to applying it? I realize the memory leak is a tiny one
> in the regression testing code, so it could never amount to enough
> to matter; but it seems worth fixing just to avoid noise in code
> analyzers.
We have marked a large number of memory leak reports by Coverity in
initdb and other short-lived programs as false positive, on the grounds
that there's no point in freeing memory in a program that's about to
terminate anyway. I'm not saying I agree necessarily with that POV, but
if we take that stance then there's similarly no point in fixing this
leak in the regression test code, is there?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeffrey Walton | 2013-11-13 00:11:43 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| Previous Message | Jeffrey Walton | 2013-11-12 23:43:41 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeffrey Walton | 2013-11-13 00:11:43 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| Previous Message | Andreas | 2013-11-12 23:56:24 | Re: Relax table alias conflict rule in 9.3? |