On 9/3/18, 6:20 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> Nathan, could you rebase your patch set? From what I can see the last
> patch set applies with one conflict, and it would be nice for clarity to
> split the routines for analyze, vacuum and cluster into separate places.
> Similar to what is done with vacuum_is_relation_owner, having the same
> set of logs for vacuum and analyze may be cleaner. The set of ownership
> checks should happen after the skip lock checks to be consistent between
> the ownership checks done when building the relation list (list
> expansion for partitions and such) as well as for vacuum_rel() and
> analyze_rel().
Yes. I've started working on this again, but the new patch set is
probably still a few days out.
> With all the work which has been done already, I don't think that we are
> that far from getting something committable.
Great!
Nathan