ne 7. 4. 2019 v 17:27 odesÃlatel Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com>
napsal:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 08:15:06AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So how about the attached version?
>
> +1
>
> I found a few issues.
>
> \dP+ didn't work. Fix attached.
>
> +static const SchemaQuery Query_for_list_of_partitioned_relations = {
>
> + .catname = "pg_catalog.pg_class c",
>
> + .selcondition = "c.relkind = "
> CppAsString2(RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE),
>
>
> => Should it be called Query_for_list_of_partitioned_tables ? Or should
> c.relkind match indices, too ?
>
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 01:36:23AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Maybe the only behavior change I'd do to the submitted patch is to have
> > \dP show both tables and indexes, while \dPt shows only tables and \dPi
> > shows only indexes. Maybe have \dPti show both tables and indexes? (
> > identical to \dP) That would be consistent with \d itself.
>
> I think there's an issue with showing indices. You said that \dP should be
> same as \dPti, no? Right now, indices are not shown in \dP, unless a
> pattern
> is given. I see you add that behavior in the regression tests; is that
> really
> what's intended ? Also, right now adding a pattern affects how sizes are
> computed, I don't see why that's desirable or, if so, how to resolve that
> inconsistency, or how to document it.
>
That depends. If there are not pattern, then \dP show only tables, but with
total relation size (so size of indexes are nested). It is different than
\dPti, but I think so it is useful - when you don't specify object type,
then usually you would to see a tables, but with total size.
I don't see a benefit from \dP == \dPti. When there are a pattern (that can
choose some index, then, indexes are displayed and \dP == \dPti.
I think so Alvaro's version is correct, and I prefer it.
Regards
Pavel
> Justin
>
