On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:58 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Currently, XLogRecGetBlockTag has 41 callers, of which only four > > bother to check the function's result. The remainder take it on > > faith that they got valid data back, and many of them will > > misbehave in seriously nasty ways if they didn't. (This point > > was drawn to my attention by a Coverity complaint.) > > > > I think we should make this a little less fragile. Since we > > already have XLogRecGetBlockTagExtended, I propose that callers > > that need to handle the case of no-such-block must use that, > > while XLogRecGetBlockTag throws an error. The attached patch > > fixes that up, and also cleans up some random inconsistency > > about use of XLogRecHasBlockRef(). > > Looks reasonable.
+1
