I think it's 'coz the only assignment to "plpgsql_nDatums" the checker
could find is on line 176, without realizing plpgsql_nDatums is actually a
global variable and could be changed anywhere... We'll rule out cases like
this in the future. Thanks for letting us know. --yichen
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm confused by the entry flagging pl_comp.c:527:
>
> [BUG] is plpgsql_nDatums 0 here? also, sizeof (plpgsql_nDatums) =
> 2*sizeof(PLpgSQL_datum *)
>
> Is the thing concerned because malloc(0) may yield NULL on some
> platforms? If so, should I object that it ought to be smart enough to
> know the loop won't execute in that case? Or am I missing something?
> Also, I don't understand your comment about the sizeof() relationship.
>
> regards, tom lane
>