On 29 December 2014 10:22 Amit Kapila Wrote,

>> Case1:In Case for CompleteDB:
>> In base code first it will process all the tables in stage 1 then in stage2 
>> and so on, so that at some time all the tables are analyzed at least up to 
>> certain stage.
>> But If we process all the stages for one table first, and then take the 
>> other table for processing the stage 1, then it may happen that for some 
>> table all the stages are processed,
>> but others are waiting for even first stage to be processed, this will 
>> affect the functionality for analyze-in-stages.
>> Case2: In case for independent tables like –t “t1” –t “t2”
> In base code also currently we are processing all the stages for first table 
> and processing same for next table and so on.
>> I think, if user is giving multiple tables together then his purpose might 
>> be to analyze those tables together stage by stage,
>> but in our code we analyze table1 in all stages and then only considering 
>> the next table.
>So basically you want to say that currently the processing for
>tables with --analyze-in-stages switch is different when the user
>executes vacuumdb for whole database versus when it does for
>individual tables (multiple tables together).  In the proposed patch
>the processing for tables will be same for either cases (whole
>database or independent tables).  I think your point has merit, so
>lets proceed with this as it is in your patch.

>Do you have anything more to handle in patch or shall I take one
>another look and pass it to committer if it is ready for the same.

I think nothing more to be handled from my side, you can go ahead with review..


Reply via email to