Re: Nitpicking: unnecessary NULL-pointer check in pg_upgrade's controldata.c

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Nitpicking: unnecessary NULL-pointer check in pg_upgrade's controldata.c
Date: 2015-06-26 13:55:17
Message-ID: CA+TgmoadYY6n7DL4-SybPUb-xZikMY4aOvxA-ap9YsfUhzKJJw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-06-26 09:44:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't mind committing patches for this kind of thing if it makes the
>> Coverity reports easier to deal with, which I gather that it does.
>
> It takes about three seconds to mark it as ignored which will hide it
> going forward.

So what? That doesn't help if someone *else* sets up a Coverity run
on this code base, or if say Salesforce sets up such a run on their
fork of the code base. It's much better to fix the problem at the
root.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-06-26 13:58:22 Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-06-26 13:53:30 Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?