Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 1:12 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Basically, Coverity doesn't understand that a successful call to
>> read_stream_next_buffer must set per_buffer_data here. I don't
>> think there's much chance of teaching it that, so we'll just
>> have to dismiss this item as "intentional, not a bug".
> Is this easy to do? Like is there a list of things from coverity to ignore?
Their website has a table of live issues, and we can just mark this
one "dismissed". I'm not entirely sure how they recognize dismissed
issues --- it's not perfect, because old complaints tend to get
resurrected after changes in nearby code. But it's good enough.
>> I do have a suggestion: I think the "per_buffer_data" variable
>> should be declared inside the "while (true)" loop not outside.
> Done and pushed. Thanks!
Thanks, looks better now.
regards, tom lane
