From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: emre@hasegeli.com, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Ning Yu <nyu@pivotal.io>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for PostgreSQL
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:43:45 +0200
Message-ID: <611f2223-cf96-b26b-a58e-f8b76b156780@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE2gYzyut4=O4qLwY+AkabB7Gm=rkwODr3_9kkAqx9WCFLzfcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1fjZo1-00019i-GG@gemulon.postgresql.org>
<20180731172149.kdjl3xdjjtwxaj4s@alvherre.pgsql>
<CAKmaiL2o6584gLFP=6YX-MUqmvOiT==uny+LA8z3=uAnriuzXA@mail.gmail.com>
<26769.1533090136@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAE2gYzw6iD1YTZ+67hA=s3AG5sbLCsGkHRYQ_Z1Kd+vhiM7ecA@mail.gmail.com>
<5fece6c5-6a80-9694-1a24-3ae245ae2cba@2ndquadrant.com>
<26723.1533131824@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAE2gYzyut4=O4qLwY+AkabB7Gm=rkwODr3_9kkAqx9WCFLzfcg@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/01/2018 04:07 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
>> I think there are three different things that need to be addressed:
>>
>> * Underspecified comments.
>
> I agree. My patch added comments, the next one with actual fixes adds
> more. I just didn't want to invest even more time on them while the
> code is its current shape.
>
>> * The function names and argument names are badly chosen IMO, because even
>> granted a convention such as the above, it's not very obvious what roles
>> "l1" and "l2" play. I'm not exactly sure what would be better, but if you
>> used names like "ofseg" and "otherseg" you'd at least be trying. I'd go
>> with an asymmetrical function name too, to make miswriting of calls less
>> likely.
>
> Good idea. I haven't though about that, but now such names makes more
> sense to me. I will prepare another patch to improve the naming and
> comments to be applied on top of my current patches.
>
>> * And lastly, are we sure there aren't actual *bugs* here? I'd initially
>> supposed that lseg_closept_lseg acted as Emre says above, but reading the
>> code makes me think it's the other way around. Its first two potential
>> assignments to *result are definitely assigning points on l2 not l1.
>
> Yes, it is wrong beyond understanding. The committed patch intended
> to keep answers as they were. The next one actually fixes those.
>
OK, so I think we should not do anything about the issues reported by
coverity until we commit all the patches. Which may resolve some of
those (pre-existing) issues, for example.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, nyu@pivotal.io, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for PostgreSQL
In-Reply-To: <611f2223-cf96-b26b-a58e-f8b76b156780@2ndquadrant.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox