On 12/18/17, 3:30 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to the following old comment, there might be reason why we
> didn't pass the information to vacuum_rel(). But your patch fetches
> the relation
> name even if the "relation" is not provided. I wonder if it can be
> problem in some cases.
Thanks for taking another look.
I've thought through a few edge cases here, but I haven't noticed
anything that I think is a problem. If an unspecified relation is
renamed prior to get_rel_name(), we'll use the updated name, which
doesn't seem like an issue. If an unspecified relation is renamed
between get_rel_name() and the log statement, we'll use the old name,
which seems possible in the current logging logic for VACUUM/ANALYZE.
And if an unspecified relation is dropped just prior to
get_rel_name(), the result will be NULL, and the logging will be
skipped (as it already is for concurrently dropped relations that are
not specified in the command).
Nathan
