From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Simplify the logic a bit (src/bin/scripts/reindexdb.c) |
Date: | 2025-02-14 13:19:43 |
Message-ID: | CAEudQAqwZcCFXzR9wpzJ5shC36xn2VqFMP9vqKirEUfR4ZnODA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em sex., 14 de fev. de 2025 às 09:13, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
escreveu:
> Hi Álvaro.
>
> Em qui., 13 de fev. de 2025 às 18:38, Álvaro Herrera <
> alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)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.
What do you think?
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-simplifies-reindex-one-database-reindexdb.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yura Sokolov | 2025-02-14 14:09:18 | Re: Get rid of WALBufMappingLock |
Previous Message | Ilia Evdokimov | 2025-02-14 13:17:09 | Re: Sample rate added to pg_stat_statements |