Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why? I don't think we are able to run 'embedded' now as it is, so its not > > like we're dealign with system with small disk spaces :) how much bigger > > would adding that exit() make the binary? > > It's not only the exit(), as the elevel parameter isn't always a > constant. The proposed patch would at a minimum expose us to > double-evaluation risks. I kinda doubt there are any cases where an > elevel parameter expression has side-effects, so that objection may be > mostly hypothetical, but nonetheless we are talking about more than just > wasting a few bytes. It's not impossible that the patch would introduce > outright bugs. Consider something like > > /* ENOENT is expected, anything else is not */ > elog(errno == ENOENT ? DEBUG : ERROR, ...) > > By the time control comes back from elog, errno would likely be > different, and so this would result in an unexpected exit() call > if the patch is in place. I'd be the first to call the above poor > coding, but it wouldn't be a bug ... unless the errno is rechecked. > > It's been asserted that Coverity can be taught to understand about > elog/ereport without this sort of hack, so I'd rather take that tack.
Agreed. The idea of modifying our binary in any way to help a sanity tool not complain is totally backwards. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
