On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > > On 2/12/15 10:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> When calling vacuum(), there is the following assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE: >> Assert((vacstmt->options & VACOPT_VACUUM) || >> !(vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE))); >> I think that this should be changed with sanity checks based on the >> parameter values of freeze_* in VacuumStmt as we do not set up >> VACOPT_FREEZE when VACUUM is used without options in parenthesis, for >> something like that: >> Assert((vacstmt->options & VACOPT_VACUUM) || >> - !(vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE))); >> + ((vacstmt->options & VACOPT_FULL) == 0 && >> + vacstmt->freeze_min_age < 0 && >> + vacstmt->freeze_table_age < 0 && >> + vacstmt->multixact_freeze_min_age < 0 && >> + vacstmt->multixact_freeze_table_age < 0)); >> This would also have the advantage to limit the use of VACOPT_FREEZE >> in the query parser. >> A patch is attached. >> Thoughts? > > > Looks good. Should we also assert that if VACOPT_FREEZE is set then all the > other stuff is 0? I don't know what kind of sanity checks we normally try and > put on the parser, but that seems like a possible hole.
Possible, but this would require at least to change gram.y to update VacuumStmt->options to set VACOPT_FREEZE for the case where VACUUM is parsed without parenthesis. I'd rather simply rely on the freeze parameters for simplicity. That is at least what I guess by looking at where is used VACOPT_FREEZE. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
