On 9/3/18, 6:20 PM, "Michael Paquier" <mich...@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
