On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > When calling vacuum(), there is the following assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE: > Assert((vacstmt->options & VACOPT_VACUUM) || > !(vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE))); > I think that this should be changed with sanity checks based on the > parameter values of freeze_* in VacuumStmt as we do not set up > VACOPT_FREEZE when VACUUM is used without options in parenthesis, for > something like that: > Assert((vacstmt->options & VACOPT_VACUUM) || > - !(vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE))); > + ((vacstmt->options & VACOPT_FULL) == 0 && > + vacstmt->freeze_min_age < 0 && > + vacstmt->freeze_table_age < 0 && > + vacstmt->multixact_freeze_min_age < 0 && > + vacstmt->multixact_freeze_table_age < 0)); > This would also have the advantage to limit the use of VACOPT_FREEZE > in the query parser. > A patch is attached. > Thoughts?
I think it's right the way it is. The parser constructs a VacuumStmt for either a VACUUM or an ANALYZE command. That statement is checking that if you are doing an ANALYZE, you can't specify FULL or FREEZE. That makes sense, because there is no ANALYZE FULL or ANALYZE FREEZE command. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers