Re: Potential reference miscounts and segfaults in plpython.c
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Potential reference miscounts and segfaults in plpython.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17954.1329708579@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Potential reference miscounts and segfaults in plpython.c (Jan Urbański <wulczer@wulczer.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Potential reference miscounts and segfaults in plpython.c
Re: Potential reference miscounts and segfaults in plpython.c |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Urbański <wulczer@wulczer.org> writes: >> On 18/02/12 21:17, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Dave Malcolm at Red Hat has been working on a static code analysis tool >>> for Python-related C code. He reports here on some preliminary results >>> for plpython.c: >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795011 > Here's a patch that fixes everything I was sure was an actual bug. The > rest of the warnings seem to be caused by the tool not knowing that > elog(ERROR) throws a longjmp and things like "we never unref this > object, so it can't disappear mid-execution". This looks pretty sane to me, but it would probably be better if one of the more python-savvy committers took responsibility for final review. My only comment is whether elog(ERROR) is appropriate, ie, do we consider these to be internal errors that users will never see in practice? If there's a significant risk of the error being thrown in the field, it might be better to use ereport, to expose the message for translation. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: