Re: DBSize backend integration

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Can someone come up with a better name than total_relation_size(),
> because we already have relation_size()?  The problem is that in the
> first case, relation means the relation/indexes/toast, and in the second
> it is just the heap.  Should we call relation_size() pg_heap_size().  I
> prefer that.

Both "relation" and "heap" are PG-isms I think.  Seems to me we should
be using "pg_table_size" for the "most natural" unit, which is either
heap+toast+toast_index or heap+toast+toast_index+table_indexes depending
on whether you agree with the SQL committee that indexes are an
implementation detail ...

			regards, tom lane