Em dom., 5 de out. de 2025 às 13:05, Tom Lane <[email protected]> escreveu:
> Ranier Vilela <[email protected]> writes: > > Per Coverity. > > CID 1635309: (#1 of 1): Unchecked return value (CHECKED_RETURN) > > 7. check_return: Calling window_gettupleslot without checking return > value > > (as is done elsewhere 8 out of 9 times). > > Yeah, the security team's Coverity instance just whined about that > too. But isn't the correct behavior simply "return -1"? It seems to me a better option. > It looks > to me like a failure should be interpreted as "row doesn't exist, > therefore it's not in frame". > I also believe that the original author did not expect a failure here. > What would be really useful is a test case that reaches this > condition. That would make it plain what to do. > There is a comment above that indicates that possibly a failure could also be the end of the partition. v1 patch attached. best regards, Ranier Vilela
v1-fix-api-misuse-function-window_gettupleslot.patch
Description: Binary data
