Em seg., 6 de out. de 2025 às 08:33, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> escreveu:
Em dom., 5 de out. de 2025 às 13:05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu:
Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> writes: > Per Coverity. > CID 1635309: (#1 of 1): Unchecked return value (CHECKED_RETURN) > 7. check_return: Calling window_gettupleslot without checking return value > (as is done elsewhere 8 out of 9 times).
Yeah, the security team's Coverity instance just whined about that too. But isn't the correct behavior simply "return -1"?
It seems to me a better option.
It looks to me like a failure should be interpreted as "row doesn't exist, therefore it's not in frame".
I also believe that the original author did not expect a failure here.
What would be really useful is a test case that reaches this condition. That would make it plain what to do.
There is a comment above that indicates that possibly a failure could also be the end of the partition.
v1 patch attached.
It seems to me that this issue is being addressed in another thread. [1] I'll withdraw these patch.
