| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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: | 2018-01-26 18:32:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ=eEPDkk2W+B12Cu_xVeWqys7X=b+2wZu7HD5qWj8jYQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There could be value in having a version dedicated to inheritance trees
> as well, true enough. As well as value in having something that shows
> both. Still let's not forget that partition sets are structured so as
> the parents have no data, so I see more value in having only partitions
> listed, without the INHERIT part. Opinions from others are of course
> welcome.
Well, partitioning and inheritance can't be mixed. A given table has
either partitions OR inheritance children OR neither. 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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-26 18:33:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-26 18:17:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |