From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Avoid possible deference NULL pointer (src/backend/optimizer/path/allpaths.c) |
Date: | 2025-02-05 17:34:57 |
Message-ID: | CAEudQAoOZkWaWsaG29bP-wSe5eC+tUwySJgBzKPx=5fBa4gVxA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi.
Em qua., 5 de fev. de 2025 às 14:08, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
escreveu:
> > On 5 Jan 2025, at 00:29, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > Per Coverity.
> >
> > All call sites of function *get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys* checks
> > for NULL returns.
> >
> > So, it is highly likely that the function will return NULL.
> >
> > IMO, the Assert in this particular call, is not fully effective.
> >
> > Fix removing the Assert and always check if the return is NULL.
>
> Yet the author wrote an Assert here (over a decade ago), so rather than
> blindly
> changing that it seems reasonable to motivate a patch like this with an
> investigation on what the Assert means here. The fact that Coverity
> complains
> is far from conclusive evidence that something is wrong.
>
This is evidence that we do not have reports about this bug.
In any case, I think it's very unsafe for the future to trust that a
function that returns NULL
will never return in this particular case, don't you think?
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-02-05 17:37:12 | Re: Avoid possible deference NULL pointer (src/backend/optimizer/path/allpaths.c) |
Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-02-05 17:32:01 | Re: Failed assertion with jit enabled |