On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:33 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.
Agreed. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
