From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | mathias(at)brossard(dot)org, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |
Date: | 2018-10-31 17:19:01 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRC6BUvCWu40mri1RGywn+4D7hRphjRMB=xLmEF_J5LsJQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
st 31. 10. 2018 v 7:34 odesílatel Amit Langote <
Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> napsal:
> On 2018/10/31 15:30, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > st 31. 10. 2018 v 3:27 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> > Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> napsal:
> >> + appendPQExpBufferStr(&buf, "\nWHERE c.relkind IN ('p')\n");
> >>
> >> I wonder if we should list partitioned indexes ('I') as well, because
> >> their size information is not available with \di+. But maybe, they
> should
> >> have a separate command.
> >>
> >
> > I though about it too and I prefer separate command. Similar to \di+
>
> Okay, maybe \dI+.
>
>
what about combination
\dPt+ for partitined tables and size
\dPi+ for indexes on partitioned tables and size
\dP+ for total partition size (tables + indexes)
What do you think about it?
Regards
Pavel
> > I am not sure. Has not sense run this test over empty database, and some
> > bigger database can increase running.
> >
> > More the size can be platform depend.
>
> Okay, sure.
>
> Thanks,
> Amit
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-10-31 17:24:44 | Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-10-31 17:17:39 | Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option |