On 12/18/17, 3:30 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.m...@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
