From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: partition tree inspection functions |
Date: | 2018-08-03 12:35:55 |
Message-ID: | 7f2e6674-9196-9fe7-1405-368bafd64198@redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Amit,
On 08/03/2018 04:28 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> That's a good idea, thanks.
>
> Actually, by the time I sent the last version of the patch or maybe few
> versions before that, I too had started thinking if we shouldn't just have
> a SETOF RECORD function like you've outlined here, but wasn't sure of the
> fields it should have. (relid, parentid, level) seems like a good start,
> or maybe that's just what we need.
>
I think there should be a column that identifies leaf partitions (bool
isleaf), otherwise it isn't obvious in complex scenarios.
>
> Note that the level that's returned for each table is computed wrt the
> root table passed to the function and not the actual root partition.
>
If you are given a leaf partition as input, then you will have to keep
executing the query until you find the root, and count those. So, I
think it should be either be the level to the root, or there should be
another column that lists that (rootlevel).
Best regards,
Jesper
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-08-03 12:39:24 | Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-08-03 12:31:15 | Re: Alter index rename concurrently to |