| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DBSize backend integration |
| Date: | 2005-06-27 02:27:36 |
| Message-ID: | 21247.1119839256@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-27 02:28:11 | Re: Open items |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-27 02:26:50 | Re: Open items |