Re: Fix misuse use of pg_b64_encode function (contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c)
От | Ranier Vilela |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fix misuse use of pg_b64_encode function (contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEudQAoPNkiUXvCW5etknu+=chPvm5RWiSRT+633AOrVPBGsQw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fix misuse use of pg_b64_encode function (contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c) (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fix misuse use of pg_b64_encode function (contrib/postgres_fdw/connection.c)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Em qui., 16 de jan. de 2025 às 05:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> escreveu:
On 16.01.25 02:12, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Per Coverity.
>
> CID 1590024: (CHECKED_RETURN)
> Calling "pg_b64_encode" without checking return value (as is done
> elsewhere 8 out of 10 times).
>
> The function *pg_b64_encode* has in the comments:
> [0] "and -1 in the event of an error"
>
> So, the function can fail.
> All other calls check the return, In this case it could not be different.
>
> Fix by checking the return and reporting a message to the user,
> in case of failure.
Thanks, fixed. (I changed the ereports to elogs, which is how other
call sites do it.)
Thank you.
I also fixed a related problem in the pg_b64_decode() calls in libpq.
Maybe we could put a pg_nodiscard attribute on pg_b64_encode() and
pg_b64_decode()?
+1
> [0] I think the most correct would be *or* not *and* word?
I think both are ok here.
Ok.
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: