Em seg., 6 de out. de 2025 às 08:33, Ranier Vilela <[email protected]> escreveu:
> > 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. > It seems to me that this issue is being addressed in another thread. [1] I'll withdraw these patch. best regards, Ranier Vilela [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20251002.211550.1475922457918078317.ishii%40postgresql.org
