Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode
Date: 2017-03-02 12:48:20
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYG-dnA6mK9WtDZH0xUacWmFRLTWs5p0e-n0fxx7v2YLQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> think we should omit this logic (and change the documentation to
>> match). That is, a database-wide ANALYZE should update the statistics
>> for each child as well as for the parent. Otherwise direct queries
>> against the children (and partitionwise joins, once we have that) are
>> going to go haywire.
>
> OK, done. I updated both analyze.sgml and vacuum.sgml to be more up to
> date. Both pages previously omitted materialized views.
>
> Attached updated patches.

Thanks, committed 0001 with a slight change to the wording.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message amul sul 2017-03-02 13:03:42 Re: [POC] hash partitioning
Previous Message Rushabh Lathia 2017-03-02 12:36:51 Print correct startup cost for the group aggregate.