Re: Checking assumptions

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Checking assumptions
Date: 2006-04-21 01:12:51
Message-ID: 44483193.7030908@calorieking.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> 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?

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2006-04-21 01:14:05 Re: Google SoC--Idea Request
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-04-21 00:30:55 UPDATE on many-column tables (was Re: [PERFORM] Performance decrease)