On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:42:14PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Here my position is strong. \dP for me doesn't mean "tables or
> indexes" - it means "partition tables with total relation size". I
> don't see any sense to show tables and indexes in one report.
Please let me disagree on that point. \dP, \dPt and \dPi are commands
able to show information about respectively partitioned relations,
partitioned tables and partitioned indexes, which is not something only
related to the size of those partitions. Showing only the level of a
relation in its hierarchy may be useful, but that's confusing for the
user without knowing its direct parent or its top-most parent. For
multiple levels, the direct parent without the number in the hierarchy
seems enough to me. I may be of course wrong in designing those
concepts.
There are open two points:
1. display hierarchy of partitioned structures.
2. what should be displayed by \dP command.
@1 I agree so this information can be interesting and useful. But I have a problem with consistency of this report. When result is table, then I think so we can introduce, and should to introduce some new special report for command - maybe \dPh
that can show hiearchy of one partitioned table (the table name should be required)
I think so can be much more readable to have special report like
\dPh parent_tab
parent_tab
-> direct partitions 24kB
-> child_30_40
-> direct partitions 16kB
This is some what i can read, and I see (very naturally) the hierarchy of partitions and the relations between
I have not feel well when I see in one report numbers 40 and 16, I see much more comfortable when I see 24 and 16, but for this I need a different perspective
What do you think about it?