Em sex., 14 de fev. de 2025 às 10:19, Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Em sex., 14 de fev. de 2025 às 09:13, Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> > escreveu: > >> 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. >> > Attached is the prototype version v1. > Any chance to push this forward? Is it worth creating a committfest entry? best regards, Ranier Vilela
