Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table
От | Justin Pryzby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190407152708.GX17544@telsasoft.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 08:15:06AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So how about the attached version? +1 I found a few issues. \dP+ didn't work. Fix attached. +static const SchemaQuery Query_for_list_of_partitioned_relations = { + .catname = "pg_catalog.pg_class c", + .selcondition = "c.relkind = " CppAsString2(RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE), => Should it be called Query_for_list_of_partitioned_tables ? Or should c.relkind match indices, too ? On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 01:36:23AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Maybe the only behavior change I'd do to the submitted patch is to have > \dP show both tables and indexes, while \dPt shows only tables and \dPi > shows only indexes. Maybe have \dPti show both tables and indexes? ( > identical to \dP) That would be consistent with \d itself. I think there's an issue with showing indices. You said that \dP should be same as \dPti, no? Right now, indices are not shown in \dP, unless a pattern is given. I see you add that behavior in the regression tests; is that really what's intended ? Also, right now adding a pattern affects how sizes are computed, I don't see why that's desirable or, if so, how to resolve that inconsistency, or how to document it. Justin
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: