Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, the existing assertion is right. My point is that it is strange
> that we do not check the values of freeze parameters for an ANALYZE
> query, which should be set to -1 all the time. If this is thought as
> not worth checking, I'll drop this patch and my concerns.

Perhaps this explains better what I got in mind, aka making the
assertion stricter:
        Assert((vacstmt->options & VACOPT_VACUUM) ||
-                  !(vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE)));
+                  ((vacstmt->options & (VACOPT_FULL | VACOPT_FREEZE)) == 0 &&
+                       vacstmt->freeze_min_age < 0 &&
+                       vacstmt->freeze_table_age < 0 &&
+                       vacstmt->multixact_freeze_min_age < 0 &&
+                       vacstmt->multixact_freeze_table_age < 0));

Regards,
--
Michael