On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:14 PM shihao zhong <zhong950419@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> However, Option 1) would be my go-to option for HEAD ...
>
> Updated my patch to apply the same rules to all VacuumParams. Also I
> am seeing clusterParams as a pass reference, not sure if we should
> also change that to prevent future issues. But that should be another
> patch.
static inline void
-table_relation_vacuum(Relation rel, struct VacuumParams *params,
+table_relation_vacuum(Relation rel, struct VacuumParams params,
BufferAccessStrategy bstrategy)
{
rel->rd_tableam->relation_vacuum(rel, params, bstrategy);
diff --git a/src/include/commands/vacuum.h b/src/include/commands/vacuum.h
index bc37a80dc74..9a8c63352da 100644
--- a/src/include/commands/vacuum.h
+++ b/src/include/commands/vacuum.h
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ extern PGDLLIMPORT int64 parallel_vacuum_worker_delay_ns;
/* in commands/vacuum.c */
extern void ExecVacuum(ParseState *pstate, VacuumStmt *vacstmt, bool
isTopLevel);
-extern void vacuum(List *relations, VacuumParams *params,
+extern void vacuum(List *relations, VacuumParams params,
BufferAccessStrategy bstrategy, MemoryContext vac_context,
bool isTopLevel);
extern void vac_open_indexes(Relation relation, LOCKMODE lockmode,
@@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ extern void vac_update_relstats(Relation relation,
bool *frozenxid_updated,
bool *minmulti_updated,
bool in_outer_xact);
-extern bool vacuum_get_cutoffs(Relation rel, const VacuumParams *params,
+extern bool vacuum_get_cutoffs(Relation rel, const VacuumParams params,
struct VacuumCutoffs *cutoffs);
extern bool vacuum_xid_failsafe_check(const struct VacuumCutoffs *cutoffs);
extern void vac_update_datfrozenxid(void);
@@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ extern void parallel_vacuum_main(dsm_segment *seg,
shm_toc *toc);
/* in commands/analyze.c */
extern void analyze_rel(Oid relid, RangeVar *relation,
- VacuumParams *params, List *va_cols, bool in_outer_xact,
+ VacuumParams params, List *va_cols, bool in_outer_xact,
It's a bit odd that we have both `VacuumParams *params` and
`struct VacuumParams *params`. Perhaps you could remove
the struct keyword in this patch to make it consistent.
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
