ne 7. 4. 2019 v 18:07 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> napsal:
> On 2019-Apr-07, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > ne 7. 4. 2019 v 17:27 odesílatel Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> > > napsal: > > > > I think there's an issue with showing indices. You said that \dP > should be > > > same as \dPti, no? Right now, indices are not shown in \dP, unless a > > > pattern is given. I see you add that behavior in the regression > > > tests; is that really what's intended ? Also, right now adding a > > > pattern affects how sizes are computed, I don't see why that's > > > desirable or, if so, how to resolve that inconsistency, or how to > > > document it. > > > > That depends. If there are not pattern, then \dP show only tables, but > with > > total relation size (so size of indexes are nested). It is different than > > \dPti, but I think so it is useful - when you don't specify object type, > > then usually you would to see a tables, but with total size. > > > > I don't see a benefit from \dP == \dPti. When there are a pattern (that > can > > choose some index, then, indexes are displayed and \dP == \dPti. > > Well, I think Justin has it right --- \dP should be just like \df, which > means to list "everything". If you add the "t" or the "i", that means > to list only those kinds of things (just like adding one of a, n, p, t, > w does for \df). You can add both, and then it list both kinds, just > like \dfanptw list the same things that \df does. > > That's also what I changed the docs to say, but I failed to update the > code correctly, and didn't verify the expected output closely either. > So I'm due to resubmit this ... > ok Pavel > -- > Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services >
