| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactor "mutually exclusive options" error reporting code in parse_subscription_options |
| Date: | 2021-06-10 04:17:49 |
| Message-ID: | YMGSbdV1tMTJroA6@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 09:17:55AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Hm. I get it. Unfortunately the commit b1ff33f is missing information
> on what the coverity tool was complaining of and it has no related
> discussion at all.
This came from a FORWARD_NULL complain, due to the fact that
parse_subscription_options() has checks for all three options if
connect is non-NULL a bit down after being done with the value
assignments with the DefElems. So coverity was warning that we'd
better be careful to always have all three pointers set if a
connection is wanted by the caller.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com | 2021-06-10 04:29:44 | RE: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2021-06-10 04:13:44 | Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep |