| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c |
| Date: | 2015-02-18 06:26:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSiE3SHi0b7MDQpgT2mp-6s-1jwu3vKqip9t1inTw1Mzg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, the existing assertion is right. My point is that it is strange
> that we do not check the values of freeze parameters for an ANALYZE
> query, which should be set to -1 all the time. If this is thought as
> not worth checking, I'll drop this patch and my concerns.
Perhaps this explains better what I got in mind, aka making the
assertion stricter:
Assert((vacstmt->options & VACOPT_VACUUM) ||
- !(vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE)));
+ ((vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE)) == 0 &&
+ vacstmt->freeze_min_age < 0 &&
+ vacstmt->freeze_table_age < 0 &&
+ vacstmt->multixact_freeze_min_age < 0 &&
+ vacstmt->multixact_freeze_table_age < 0));
Regards,
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 20150218_vacuum_freeze_fix_assertion_v2.patch | application/x-patch | 833 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-02-18 06:44:04 | Re: Perl coding error in msvc build system? |
| Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2015-02-18 06:12:38 | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |