pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: partition tree inspection functions
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:30:38 -0400
Message-ID: <2780ebf9-99ae-b433-2d0c-dbca2995956a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3273a7af-3aca-eb86-cedb-f7b28be00831@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <8d00e51a-9a51-ad02-d53e-ba6bf50b2e52@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<5a560c9c-3722-1914-f34b-1de0ff3310d1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<CAOgcT0P8FC4Sat1ytVZgm09qd2bgMv-7pWpvU1HdBMKSah9r-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<d5f5b9a8-0c88-8043-2007-be37096bed39@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<20180627121615.GF2667@paquier.xyz>
	<45e28062-976d-45bf-56f8-9746f551da02@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<20180628034341.GH11054@paquier.xyz>
	<6baeb45a-6222-6b88-342d-37fc7d3cf89a@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<4f4a2518-6c62-5463-6ac2-1241ae9d6041@redhat.com>
	<e12ff710-dcf5-18ff-b4a4-cc42432d84c4@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<38183355-ea7c-9443-0c38-6124fcf5f38b@redhat.com>
	<5686970f-b4e8-bbe5-9109-b97763714c19@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<da9f8b6d-13bb-18fe-7777-b3be7bdd327b@redhat.com>
	<3273a7af-3aca-eb86-cedb-f7b28be00831@lab.ntt.co.jp>

Hi Amit,

On 07/26/2018 04:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Alright, I have replaced pg_partition_tree_tables with
> pg_partition_children with an 'include_all' argument, as you suggested,
> but I implemented it as an optional argument.  So, one would use that
> argument only if need to get *all* partitions.  I have also added a
> pg_partition_leaf_children() that returns just the leaf partitions, which
> wasn't there in the previous versions.
>

Great.

> Further, I've added a pg_partition_level that returns the level of a
> partition in the partition tree wrt to the root of the *whole* partition
> tree.  But maybe we want this function to accept one more argument,
> 'rootoid', the OID of the root table against which to measure the level?
> 

I don't think that is needed, or it should at least be an optional 
parameter.

>>> Maybe call it pg_partition_tree_leaf_count() or some such then?
>>
>> That could work.
> 
> OK, I fixed it to return just the count of leaf partitions and renamed it
> as such (pg_partition_children_leaf_count), but wonder if it's been made
> redundant by the addition of pg_partition_leaf_children.
> 

I think with pg_partition_leaf_children that we don't need the _count 
method, called pg_partition_tree_leaf_count in the docs, as we can just 
do a COUNT().

Best regards,
  Jesper




view thread (74+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <2780ebf9-99ae-b433-2d0c-dbca2995956a@redhat.com>
Permalink:  ../2780ebf9-99ae-b433-2d0c-dbca2995956a@redhat.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/2780ebf9-99ae-b433-2d0c-dbca2995956a@redhat.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: jesper.pedersen@redhat.com, Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, michael@paquier.xyz, jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com
  Subject: Re: partition tree inspection functions
  In-Reply-To: <2780ebf9-99ae-b433-2d0c-dbca2995956a@redhat.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox