Coverity: Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
leaked_storage: Variable "addr" going out of scope leaks the storage it
points to.
Forgot to initialize the address, otherwise we could use uninitialized
memory in an error path.
Coverity: Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
leaked_storage: Variable "addr" going out of scope leaks the storage it
points to.
Coverity: Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
leaked_storage: Variable "buf" going out of scope leaks the storage it
points to.
Coverity:  Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
leaked_storage: Variable "file" going out of scope leaks the storage it
points to.
leaked_storage: Variable "fp" going out of scope leaks the storage it
points to.
Coverity: Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
leaked_storage: Variable "objname" going out of scope leaks the storage
it points to.
Coverity: Unintentional integer overflow (OVERFLOW_BEFORE_WIDEN)
overflow_before_widen: Potentially overflowing expression
"lsm_tree->merge_max * maxleafpage" with type "unsigned int" (32 bits,
unsigned) is evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic before being used in a
context which expects an expression of type "uint64_t" (64 bits,
unsigned). To avoid overflow, cast either operand to "uint64_t" before
performing the multiplication.

Won't ever happen, but there's no reason to risk it, either.
Coverity: Unintentional integer overflow (OVERFLOW_BEFORE_WIDEN)
overflow_before_widen: Potentially overflowing expression "in_memory *
lsm_tree->chunk_size" with type "unsigned int" (32 bits, unsigned) is
evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic before being used in a context which
expects an expression of type "uint64_t" (64 bits, unsigned). To avoid
overflow, cast either operand to "uint64_t" before performing the
multiplication.

Shouldn't ever happen, but no reason to risk it, either.
Publish the clear of the checkpointing flag (the eviction server may
already be running, we can't depend on it).
update
Don't do any work unless verbose/evictserver is actually configured.
Coverity: Missing unlock (LOCK)
missing_unlock: Returning without unlocking
"__wt_process.cache_pool->cache_pool_lock.lock".

Not really a bug, we're about to destroy the lock, unlocking it first
isn't really interesting.