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.. Regards, Dilip
