Em qui., 16 de jan. de 2025 às 05:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> escreveu:
On 16.01.25 02:12, Ranier Vilela wrote: > Per Coverity. > > CID 1590024: (CHECKED_RETURN) > Calling "pg_b64_encode" without checking return value (as is done > elsewhere 8 out of 10 times). > > The function *pg_b64_encode* has in the comments: > [0] "and -1 in the event of an error" > > So, the function can fail. > All other calls check the return, In this case it could not be different. > > Fix by checking the return and reporting a message to the user, > in case of failure.
Thanks, fixed. (I changed the ereports to elogs, which is how other call sites do it.)
Thank you.
I also fixed a related problem in the pg_b64_decode() calls in libpq.
Maybe we could put a pg_nodiscard attribute on pg_b64_encode() and pg_b64_decode()?
+1
> [0] I think the most correct would be *or* not *and* word?