On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I'm trying to wrap my head around the reasoning for this also and not > sure I'm following. In general, I don't think we protect all that hard > against functions being called with tokens that aren't allowed by the > parse.
Check. > So, basically, this feels like it's not really the right place > for these checks and if there is an existing problem then it's probably > with the grammar... Does that make sense? As long as there is no more inconsistency between the parser, that sometimes does not set VACOPT_FREEZE, and those assertions, that do not use the freeze_* parameters of VacuumStmt, I think that it will be fine. [nitpicking]We could improve things on both sides, aka change gram.y to set VACOPT_FREEZE correctly, and add some assertions with the params freeze_* at the beginning of vacuum().[/] -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers