On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 10:33:48AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 11:29:52PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > > I wonder if more of the code in the function should be updated to use the > > copy, otherwise it seems like it could more easily happen that a part of the > > code not using the modified version is moved until after a modification, and > > the code author assumes the modifications now have taken effect. > > Yeah, I was waffling on this. I updated the rest of the function to use > params_local instead.
Fine by me with these extra forward declarations and the pointer manipulations across these VACUUM/ANALYZE calls. That would be protective enough in terms of the original intention of these const markers added in 2252fcd4276c. Once vacuum_rel() has its VacuumParams changed to a pointer, renaming it to params_local and use params_local in all its code paths looks sensible. On top of what you are doing, I would add a big warning comment at the top of the routine to mention that "params" should not be used directly in the routine. The local copies should be used. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
