| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: psql display of foreign keys |
| Date: | 2018-12-05 16:09:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20181205160954.zkmyj7lnamebyy2v@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Dec-05, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This has been mentioned on the thread where pg_partition_tree has been
> discussed:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6baeb45a-6222-6b88-342d-37fc7d3cf89a%40lab.ntt.co.jp
>
> It got shaved from the final patch for simplicity as we had enough
> issues to deal with first. Adding a pg_partition_root or a new column
> in pg_partition_tree makes sense. My guts are telling me that a
> separate function is more instinctive to use.
I agree with your guts ... you can combine them (the functions, not the
guts) to obtain the full view of the partition hierarchy just by
applying pg_partition_root() to the argument of pg_partition_tree.
I think with pg_partition_root we can rewrite the FK queries to avoid
WITH RECURSIVE with pg12 servers, but of course with a pg11 server we'll
have to keep using WITH RECURSIVE.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2018-12-05 16:11:23 | Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-05 16:06:48 | Re: minor leaks in pg_dump (PG tarball 10.6) |