Re: A few new options for vacuumdb

On 1/8/19, 10:34 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:33:00AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Since pg_(total)_relation_size() returns 0 for parent table the
>> specifying the parent table to vacuumdb with --min-relation-size
>> always does nothing. Maybe we will need to deal with this case when a
>> function returning whole partitoned table size is introduced.
>
> Good point. I am not sure if we want to go down to having a size
> function dedicated to partitions especially as this would just now be
> a wrapper around pg_partition_tree(), but the size argument with
> partitioned tables is something to think about. If we cannot sort out
> this part cleanly, perhaps we could just focus on the age-ing
> parameters and the other ones first? It seems to me that what is
> proposed on this thread has value, so we could shave things and keep
> the essential, and focus on what we are sure about for simplicity.

Sounds good. I'll leave out --min-relation-size for now.

Nathan