Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size andpartitioned tables

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size andpartitioned tables
Дата
Msg-id 20180126124552.GJ17847@paquier.xyz
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size andpartitioned tables  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Ответы Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size andpartitioned tables
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 07:00:43PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> I wonder what pg_partition_tree_tables() should return when passed a table
> that doesn't have partitions under it?  Return a 1-member set containing
> itself?

Yes.  A table alone is itself part of a partition set, so the result
should be made of only itself.

> I also mean for tables that may inheritance children established
> through plain old inheritance.

There could be value in having a version dedicated to inheritance trees
as well, true enough.  As well as value in having something that shows
both.  Still let's not forget that partition sets are structured so as
the parents have no data, so I see more value in having only partitions
listed, without the INHERIT part.  Opinions from others are of course
welcome.
--
Michael

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Etsuro Fujita
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: list partition constraint shape
Следующее
От: Antonin Houska
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Aggregation push-down