| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2018-01-29 03:03:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20180129030359.GA74483@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:08:51AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/01/27 3:32, Robert Haas wrote:
>> If it has
>> either partitions or inheritance children, find_all_inheritors will
>> return them. Otherwise, I think it'll just return the input OID
>> itself. So I don't quite see, if we're going to add a convenience
>> function here, why wouldn't just define it to return the same results
>> as find_all_inheritors does?
>
> So if all we're doing is trying to make find_all_inheritors() accessible
> to users through SQL, it makes sense to call it
> pg_get_inheritance_tables() rather than pg_partition_tree_tables().
I was looking again at this stuff this morning, noticing that
find_all_inheritors() is particularly used in
check_default_allows_bound() for partitions, so complaint withdrawn.
The renaming as you propose here looks sensible as well.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-01-29 03:06:23 | Re: Updating timezone data to 2018c |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-01-29 02:45:26 | Re: Boolean partitions syntax |