On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:31AM -0400, shihao zhong wrote:
> I investigated the code and found a small bug with how we're passing
> the VacuumParams pointer.
>
> The call flow is
> ExecVacuum -> vacuum -> vacuum_rel
>
> The initial VaccumParams pointer is set in ExecVacuum
> In vacuum_rel, this pointer might change because it needs to determine
> whether to truncate and perform index_cleanup.
Nice find!
My first reaction is to wonder whether we should 1) also make a similar
change to vacuum() for some future-proofing or 2) just teach vacuum_rel()
to make a local copy of the parameters that it can scribble on. In the
latter case, we might want to assert that the parameters don't change after
calls to vacuum() and vacuum_rel() to prevent this problem from recurring.
That leads me to think (1) might be the better option, although I'm not too
wild about the subtlety of the fix.
--
nathan
