From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fixes inconsistent behavior in vacuum when it processes multiple relations |
Date: | 2025-06-18 16:31:50 |
Message-ID: | aFLp9sMEHFHULOFx@nathan |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:31AM -0400, shihao zhong wrote:
> I investigated the code and found a small bug with how we're passing
> the VacuumParams pointer.
>
> The call flow is
> ExecVacuum -> vacuum -> vacuum_rel
>
> The initial VaccumParams pointer is set in ExecVacuum
> In vacuum_rel, this pointer might change because it needs to determine
> whether to truncate and perform index_cleanup.
Nice find!
My first reaction is to wonder whether we should 1) also make a similar
change to vacuum() for some future-proofing or 2) just teach vacuum_rel()
to make a local copy of the parameters that it can scribble on. In the
latter case, we might want to assert that the parameters don't change after
calls to vacuum() and vacuum_rel() to prevent this problem from recurring.
That leads me to think (1) might be the better option, although I'm not too
wild about the subtlety of the fix.
--
nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergey Sargsyan | 2025-06-18 16:33:07 | Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-06-18 16:27:44 | Re: minimum Meson version |