Re: ANALYZE ONLY

Thanks for the feedback David.

On Mon, 9 Sept 2024 at 11:27, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> You've written "was" (past tense), but then the existing text uses
> "will" (future tense). I guess if the point in time is after parse and
> before work has been done, then that's correct, but I think using "is"
> instead of "was" is better.

> Maybe "are also vacuumed" instead of "are vacuumed" is more clear?

Agreed. I have updated my patch with both of these suggestions.

> 4. A very minor detail, but I think in vacuum.c the WARNING you've
> added should use RelationGetRelationName(). We seem to be very
> inconsistent with using that macro and I see it's not used just above
> for the lock warning, which I imagine you copied.

As far as I can tell RelationGetRelationName is for extracting the name
from a Relation struct, but in this case we have a RangeVar so it doesn't appear
to be applicable. I could not find an equivalent access macro for RangeVar.

Thanks again.

Cheers
Mike