Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table

On 2019-Apr-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:

> ne 7. 4. 2019 v 17:27 odesílatel Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
> napsal:

> > 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.

Well, I think Justin has it right --- \dP should be just like \df, which
means to list "everything". If you add the "t" or the "i", that means
to list only those kinds of things (just like adding one of a, n, p, t,
w does for \df). You can add both, and then it list both kinds, just
like \dfanptw list the same things that \df does.

That's also what I changed the docs to say, but I failed to update the
code correctly, and didn't verify the expected output closely either.
So I'm due to resubmit this ...

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services