Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Here's an updated patch.  I took your latest version and made some extra
> changes:

Thanks for taking the time to look at it!

> 1. ordered the argument list to vacuum(), hopefully it's more sensible
> now.

Fine for me.

> 2. changed struct autovac_table so that it uses "options" (the same
> VacuumOption bitmask to be passed to vacuum) and VacuumParams, instead
> of having each struct member separately.  That way, the parameters to
> vacuum() are constructed at once in autovac_recheck_table, and
> autovacuum_do_vac_analyze becomes much simpler.
>
> 3. Added VACOPT_SKIPTOAST to VacuumOptions, currently only used by
> autovacuum.  We remove the do_toast argument.

Those are good ideas, and it simplifies a bit more code.

I had a look at your modified version, and it looks good to me.

> I think this is pretty sensible and my inclination is to commit as is,
> so that we can finally move on to more interesting things (such as the
> new reloption being proposed in a nearby thread).

Thanks. I'll do a rebase if this goes in first.
Regards,
-- 
Michael