Re: partition tree inspection functions

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
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 07:27:57
Message-ID: 97131b6c-fc07-f5e6-eefd-bd5ff3f96f8d@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/10/01 15:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:16:32PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I wasn't able to respond to some of issues that Jesper brought up with the
>> approach taken by the latest patch whereby there is no separate
>> pg_partition_level function. He said that such a function would be useful
>> to get the information about the individual leaf partitions, but I was no
>> longer sure of providing such a function separately.
>
> Perhaps that could be debated separately as well? From what I can see
> what's available would unlock the psql patch which would like to add
> support for \dP, or show the size of partitions more easily.

Yeah, maybe there is no reason to delay proceeding with
pg_partition_children which provides a useful functionality.

> I am also
> not completely sure that I see the use-case for pg_partition_level or
> even pg_partition_root_parent as usually in their schemas users append
> rather similar relation names to the parent and the children. Or
> perhaps not?

We can continue discussing that once we're done dealing with
pg_partition_children and then some other patches that are pending due to
it such as Pavel's.

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lukas Fittl 2018-10-01 07:32:18 Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on
Previous Message Amit Langote 2018-10-01 07:19:58 Re: Relations being opened without any lock whatever