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
