čt 22. 11. 2018 v 15:29 odesílatel Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> napsal:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:42:14PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Here my position is strong. \dP for me doesn't mean "tables or > > indexes" - it means "partition tables with total relation size". I > > don't see any sense to show tables and indexes in one report. > > Please let me disagree on that point. \dP, \dPt and \dPi are commands > able to show information about respectively partitioned relations, > partitioned tables and partitioned indexes, which is not something only > related to the size of those partitions. Showing only the level of a > relation in its hierarchy may be useful, but that's confusing for the > user without knowing its direct parent or its top-most parent. For > multiple levels, the direct parent without the number in the hierarchy > seems enough to me. I may be of course wrong in designing those > concepts. > There are open two points: 1. display hierarchy of partitioned structures. 2. what should be displayed by \dP command. @1 I agree so this information can be interesting and useful. But I have a problem with consistency of this report. When result is table, then I think so we can introduce, and should to introduce some new special report for command - maybe \dPh that can show hiearchy of one partitioned table (the table name should be required) I think so can be much more readable to have special report like \dPh parent_tab parent_tab -> direct partitions 24kB -> child_30_40 -> direct partitions 16kB This is some what i can read, and I see (very naturally) the hierarchy of partitions and the relations between I have not feel well when I see in one report numbers 40 and 16, I see much more comfortable when I see 24 and 16, but for this I need a different perspective What do you think about it? > -- > Michael >