On 1/20/13 10:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Great catch, will commit. (But first I'm looking through commit
2594cf0e to see if I made the same mistake anywhere else :-(.)
How did you find that, coverity or some such tool?
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
It was found using a homemade static undefine
Xi Wang writes:
> The correct NULL check should use `*newval'; `newval' must be non-null.
Great catch, will commit. (But first I'm looking through commit
2594cf0e to see if I made the same mistake anywhere else :-(.)
How did you find that, coverity or some such tool?
re
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Xi Wang (xi.w...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> The correct NULL check should use `*newval'; `newval' must be non-null.
> Why isn't this using pstrdup()..?
The GUC API uses malloc, mainly because guc.c can't afford to lose
control on out-of-memory situations.
* Xi Wang (xi.w...@gmail.com) wrote:
> The correct NULL check should use `*newval'; `newval' must be non-null.
Why isn't this using pstrdup()..?
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
2013/1/20 Xi Wang :
> The correct NULL check should use `*newval'; `newval' must be non-null.
[... cutting code ...]
Please see [1] to know how is our submit patch process.
[1] http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch
regards,
--
Dickson S. Guedes
mail/xmpp: gue...@guedesoft.net - sk
The correct NULL check should use `*newval'; `newval' must be non-null.
---
src/backend/utils/cache/ts_cache.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/cache/ts_cache.c
b/src/backend/utils/cache/ts_cache.c
index e688b1a..65a8ad7 100644
--- a/src/bac
