Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdsnB4emDwnNmT4TdcDoi4wL+RKUc6t0WrV_0yMH+TrqSA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 7:36 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Coverity complained about what you did in RelationParseRelOptions
> in c95c25f9a:
>
> *** CID 1595992:  Null pointer dereferences  (FORWARD_NULL)
> /srv/coverity/git/pgsql-git/postgresql/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c: 499 in RelationParseRelOptions()
> 493
> 494             /*
> 495              * Fetch reloptions from tuple; have to use a hardwired descriptor because
> 496              * we might not have any other for pg_class yet (consider executing this
> 497              * code for pg_class itself)
> 498              */
> >>>     CID 1595992:  Null pointer dereferences  (FORWARD_NULL)
> >>>     Passing null pointer "tableam" to "extractRelOptions", which dereferences it.
> 499             options = extractRelOptions(tuple, GetPgClassDescriptor(),
> 500                                                                     tableam, amoptsfn);
> 501
>
> I see that extractRelOptions only uses the tableam argument for some
> relkinds, and RelationParseRelOptions does set it up for those
> relkinds --- but Coverity's complaint isn't without merit, because
> those two switch statements are looking at *different copies of the
> relkind*, which in theory could be different.  This all seems quite
> messy and poorly factored.  Can't we do better?  Why do we need to
> involve two copies of allegedly the same pg_class tuple, anyhow?

Thank you for reporting this, Tom.
I'm planning to investigate this later today.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Statistics Import and Export