From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables |
Date: | 2017-12-18 07:19:37 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTMJm2_sEhQggUut=X=EmjN4n7-WhTfvMVZyNsf1o5A=w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Do you (and/or others) think that's something that we can wrap inside a
> built-in function(s), that is, one defined in system_views.sql? Or if we
> decide to have new functions, say, pg_get_partitions() and/or
> pg_get_partition_sizes(), we might as well implement them as C functions
> inside dbsize.c. If so, do we have want to have "partition" variants of
> all *_size() functions viz. pg_relation_size(), pg_total_relation_size(),
> pg_indexes_size(), and pg_table_size()?
I can see value in something like Robert is proposing upthread by
having a function one is able to customize to decide what to include
in the calculation. There could be options for at least:
- partitions, or relation cascading.
- index.
- toast tables.
- visibility maps.
- FSM.
The first three ones is what Robert are mentioned, still I would see
the last two ones are interesting things if optional. Or we could have
just a SRF that returns one row per object scanned.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rushabh Lathia | 2017-12-18 07:38:56 | Re: [HACKERS] replace GrantObjectType with ObjectType |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-12-18 05:17:36 | Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables |