Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmob4uW1AqnmbxKxqLS0B=3zj_Q4CEAJQ+Oey0wXg+_wr=w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> Do you mean removing totally VacuumStmt from the stack? We would then >> need to add relation and va_cols as additional arguments of things >> like vacuum_rel, analyze_rel, do_analyze_rel or similar. >> >> FWIW, adding do_toast and for_wraparound into VacuumParams makes sense >> to me, but not VacuumStmt. It has little meaning as VacuumParams >> should be used for parameters. > > But code may tell more than words, so here is some. I noticed that > moving for_wraparound in VacuumParams makes more sense than relid and > do_toast as those values need special handling when vacuum_rel is > called for a toast relation. For the patches that are separated for > clarity: > - 0001 is the previous one > - 0002 removes VacuumStmt from the call stack of ANALYZE and VACUUM routines > - 0003 moves for_wraparound in VacuumParams. Yeah, I think something like this could be a sensible approach. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: