> 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 ...
