Re: partition tree inspection functions

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: partition tree inspection functions
Date: 2018-10-01 06:03:30
Message-ID: 20181001060330.GJ5982@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 01:05:56PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached updated patch.

So, except if I am missing something, what we have here is a patch which
has been debatted quite a bit and has semantics which look nice. Any
objections if we move forward with this patch?

+-- all tables in the tree
+select *, pg_relation_size(relid) as size from
pg_partition_children('ptif_test');
+ relid | parentid | level | isleaf | size
+-------------+------------+-------+--------+-------
+ ptif_test | | 0 | f | 0
+ ptif_test0 | ptif_test | 1 | f | 0
+ ptif_test1 | ptif_test | 1 | f | 0
+ ptif_test2 | ptif_test | 1 | t | 16384
+ ptif_test01 | ptif_test0 | 2 | t | 24576

One thing is that this test depends on the page size. There are already
plan modifications if running the regress tests with a size other than
8kB, but I don't think that we should make that worse, so I would
suggest to replace to use "pg_relation_size(relid) > 0" instead.

I have moved the patch to next CF for now.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2018-10-01 06:16:32 Re: partition tree inspection functions
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-10-01 05:57:09 Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table