Re: [HACKERS] pg9.4 relpages of child tables

2015-03-18 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:11:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Justin Pryzby writes: > > I believe there's been a behavior change, and not sure if it's deliberate. > > I > > don't think there's a negative consequence for our production use, but it > > confused me while summing relpages for analysis

Re: [HACKERS] pg9.4 relpages of child tables

2015-03-18 Thread Tom Lane
Justin Pryzby writes: > I believe there's been a behavior change, and not sure if it's deliberate. I > don't think there's a negative consequence for our production use, but it > confused me while summing relpages for analysis purposes, as our 9.4 customers > behaved differently. I don't see any

[HACKERS] pg9.4 relpages of child tables

2015-03-18 Thread Justin Pryzby
I believe there's been a behavior change, and not sure if it's deliberate. I don't think there's a negative consequence for our production use, but it confused me while summing relpages for analysis purposes, as our 9.4 customers behaved differently. Documentation indicates that in pg9.0, ANALYZE