Hi Álvaro. Em qui., 13 de fev. de 2025 às 18:38, Álvaro Herrera < alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> escreveu:
> On 2025-Feb-13, Ranier Vilela wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > Coverity complained about possible dereference null pointer > > in *reindex_one_database* function. > > That's not really true. > > But the logic is unnecessarily complicated. > > Hmm, this code looks quite suspect, but I wonder if instead of (what > looks more or less like) a straight revert of cc0e7ebd304a as you > propose, a better fix wouldn't be to split get_parallel_object_list in > two: get_parallel_table_list for the DATABASE and SCHEMA cases, and > get_parallel_tabidx_list (or whatever) for the INDEX case. In the first > case we just return a list of values, but in the latter case we also > meddle with the input list which becomes an output list ... > Sure, I'll try to do it. best regards, Ranier Vilela
