On 2/18/15 1:26 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Yes, the existing assertion is right. My point is that it is strange >> that we do not check the values of freeze parameters for an ANALYZE >> query, which should be set to -1 all the time. If this is thought as >> not worth checking, I'll drop this patch and my concerns. > > Perhaps this explains better what I got in mind, aka making the > assertion stricter: > Assert((vacstmt->options & VACOPT_VACUUM) || > - !(vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE))); > + ((vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE)) == 0 && > + vacstmt->freeze_min_age < 0 && > + vacstmt->freeze_table_age < 0 && > + vacstmt->multixact_freeze_min_age < 0 && > + vacstmt->multixact_freeze_table_age < 0));
That's cool if you want to add those assertions, but please make them separate statements each, like Assert(vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE) || vacstmt->freeze_min_age == -1); Assert(vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE) || vacstmt->freeze_table_age == -1); ... Besides being more readable, this will give you more useful output if the assertion fails. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
