Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: DBSize backend integration
- 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: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:27:36 -0400
- Message-id: <21247.1119839256@sss.pgh.pa.us> <text/plain>
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
- References:
- Re: DBSize backend integration
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: DBSize backend integration
- Prev by Date: Re: Open items
- Next by Date: Re: Open items
- Previous by thread: Re: DBSize backend integration
- Next by thread: Dbsize backend integration
- Indexes: