>> That leads me to think (1) might be the better option, although I'm not too >> wild about the subtlety of the fix.
Thanks for your feedback. New patch is attached. I also updated the signature of do_analyze_rel for the same reason. On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 12:31 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
vacuum_tables_options_2.patch
Description: Binary data
