Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size andpartitioned tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size andpartitioned tables
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f-mffi=9Kjynns4L4Oc0YN7dJfB=SKyYZH-8bDZ5=q9qg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size andpartitioned tables  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size andpartitioned tables
List pgsql-hackers
On 20 January 2018 at 23:14, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> If pg_partition_tree_tables() uses the top of the partition as input,
> all the tree should show up. If you use a leaf, anything under the leaf
> should show up. If a leaf is defined and it has no underlying leaves,
> then only this outmost leaf should be listed.

hmm, that's thoroughly confusing. Just in case anyone else is stuck on
that, I just need to mention that a leaf is the does not have
branches, in nature or computer science.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key