Em seg., 13 de mai. de 2024 às 14:38, Tom Lane escreveu:
> David Rowley writes:
> > I've added a CF entry under your name for this:
> > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4927/
>
> > If it was code new to PG17 I'd be inclined to go ahead with it now,
> > but it does not seem to align with
David Rowley writes:
> I've added a CF entry under your name for this:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4927/
> If it was code new to PG17 I'd be inclined to go ahead with it now,
> but it does not seem to align with making the release mode stable.
> I'd bet others will feel differently
Em dom., 14 de abr. de 2024 às 23:12, David Rowley
escreveu:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 12:12, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> >
> > Em dom., 14 de abr. de 2024 às 20:38, David Rowley
> escreveu:
> >> You seem to have forgotten to attach it, but my comments above were
> >> written with the assumption
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 12:12, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
> Em dom., 14 de abr. de 2024 às 20:38, David Rowley
> escreveu:
>> You seem to have forgotten to attach it, but my comments above were
>> written with the assumption that the patch is what I've attached here.
>
> Yes, I actually forgot.
>
>
David Rowley writes:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 11:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>> would this also allow us to get rid of any default:
>> cases in switches on command tags?
> git grep "case CMDTAG_" does not yield any results.
OK. It was worth checking.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 11:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> would this also allow us to get rid of any default:
> cases in switches on command tags?
git grep "case CMDTAG_" does not yield any results.
As far as I understand, we'd only be able to get rid of a default case
if we had a switch that included
Em dom., 14 de abr. de 2024 às 20:38, David Rowley
escreveu:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 11:17, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Coverity has reported some out-of-bounds bugs
> > related to the GetCommandTagName function.
> >
> > The size of the array is defined by COMMAND_TAG_NEXTTAG enum,
> > whose
David Rowley writes:
> I think the change makes sense. I don't see any good reason to define
> COMMAND_TAG_NEXTTAG or force the compiler's hand when it comes to
> sizing that array.
> Clearly, Coverity does not understand that we'll never call any of
> those GetCommandTag* functions with
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 11:17, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Coverity has reported some out-of-bounds bugs
> related to the GetCommandTagName function.
>
> The size of the array is defined by COMMAND_TAG_NEXTTAG enum,
> whose value currently corresponds to 193.
> Since enum items are evaluated starting
Hi,
Per Coverity.
Coverity has reported some out-of-bounds bugs
related to the GetCommandTagName function.
CID 1542964: (#1 of 1): Out-of-bounds access (OVERRUN)
7. overrun-call: Overrunning callee's array of size 193 by passing argument
commandtag (which evaluates to 193) in call to
10 matches
Mail list logo
