Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I agree that the correct handling of this particular case is to mark it
as not-a-bug. We have better things to do.
Well, I find that a disappointing conclusion, but I'm not going to
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-26 09:44:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't mind committing patches for this kind of thing if it makes the
Coverity reports easier to deal with, which I gather that it does.
It takes about three seconds to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
It takes about three seconds to mark it as ignored which will hide it
going forward.
So what? That doesn't help if someone *else* sets up a Coverity run
on this code base, or
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
It takes about three seconds to mark it as ignored which will hide it
going forward.
So what? That doesn't
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, if you find this to be good code cleanup on its own merits,
you have a commit bit, you can go commit it. I'm just saying that
Coverity is not a good judge of code readability and even less of
a judge of likely future
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I agree that the correct handling of this particular case is to mark it
as not-a-bug. We have better things to do.
+1
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-06-26 22:03:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi,
Coverity is nitpickingly pointing out the following thing:
--- a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
+++ b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
@@ -402,8 +402,7 @@
Hi,
Coverity is nitpickingly pointing out the following thing:
--- a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
+++ b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
@@ -402,8 +402,7 @@ get_control_data(ClusterInfo *cluster, bool live_check)
}
}
- if (output)
- pclose(output);
Hi,
On 2015-06-26 22:03:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi,
Coverity is nitpickingly pointing out the following thing:
--- a/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
+++ b/src/bin/pg_upgrade/controldata.c
@@ -402,8 +402,7 @@ get_control_data(ClusterInfo *cluster, bool live_check)
On 2015-06-26 09:44:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't mind committing patches for this kind of thing if it makes the
Coverity reports easier to deal with, which I gather that it does.
It takes about three seconds to mark it as ignored which will hide it
going forward.
--
Sent via
10 matches
Mail list logo
