On 1/8/19, 10:34 PM, "Michael Paquier" <mich...@paquier.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.
Sounds good. I'll leave out --min-relation-size for now. Nathan
