Horton

Re: Fixes inconsistent behavior in vacuum when it processes multiple relations

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: shihao zhong <zhong950419@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-06-20T19:16:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rationalize handling of VacuumParams

  2. Avoid scribbling of VACUUM options

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:34:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hmm.  I like the simplicity of option 2) for the purpose the back
> branches and the post-feature-freeze v18.

Yeah, let's do this for now.

> However, Option 1) would be my go-to option for HEAD (as of v19
> opening for business), but I think that we should harden the code more
> than suggested and treat all VacuumParams as purely input arguments
> rather keeping some pointers to it depending on the code path we are
> dealing with, so as no callers of these inner routines is surprised by
> changes that may happen internally.  Hence, reading the code of v2,
> I'd suggest to apply the same rule to vacuum_get_cutoffs(),
> do_analyze_rel() and heap_vacuum_rel().  Except if I am missing
> something, it looks like all these calls should be OK with this new
> policy.  This implies also changing relation_vacuum() in tableam.h,
> which can be a HEAD-only change anyway.

Sounds reasonable to me.

-- 
nathan