Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c

On 2/12/15 10:54 PM, Michael Paquier 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?

Looks good. Should we also assert that if VACOPT_FREEZE is set then all 
the other stuff is 0? I don't know what kind of sanity checks we 
normally try and put on the parser, but that seems like a possible hole.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com