Re: A few new options for vacuumdb

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:33 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:33:00AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Since pg_(total)_relation_size() returns 0 for parent table the
> > specifying the parent table to vacuumdb with --min-relation-size
> > always does nothing. Maybe we will need to deal with this case when a
> > function returning whole partitoned table size is introduced.
>
> Good point. I am not sure if we want to go down to having a size
> function dedicated to partitions especially as this would just now be
> a wrapper around pg_partition_tree(), but the size argument with
> partitioned tables is something to think about. If we cannot sort out
> this part cleanly, perhaps we could just focus on the age-ing
> parameters and the other ones first? It seems to me that what is
> proposed on this thread has value, so we could shave things and keep
> the essential, and focus on what we are sure about for simplicity.

Agreed.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center