Re: Potential reference miscounts and segfaults in plpython.c
| От | Jan Urbański |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Potential reference miscounts and segfaults in plpython.c |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4F418F20.9000803@wulczer.org 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 |
On 18/02/12 21:18, Jan Urbański wrote: > On 18/02/12 21:17, Tom Lane wrote: >> =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <wulczer@wulczer.org> writes: >>> On 18/02/12 20:30, 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 >> >> If you find any live bugs, it'd likely be better to deal with them as >> a separate patch so that we can back-patch ... > > Sure, I meant to say I'll look at these as well, but will make them into > a separate patch. 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". Attached are patches for HEAD and for 9.1.x (since splitting plpython.c in 9.2 was kind of my idea I felt bad about you having to back-patch this so I tried to do the necessary legwork myself; I hope the attached is what you need). BTW, that tool is quite handy, I'll have to try running it over psycopg2. Cheers, Jan
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: