| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: psql \dt and table size |
| Date: | 2011-04-08 19:56:11 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=VuA-UcK=htkMjo1xqO=C2RaDy9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
> --On 28. März 2011 13:38:23 +0100 Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
>>> But I think we can just call pg_table_size() regardless in 9.0+; I
>>> believe it'll return the same results as pg_relation_size() on
>>> non-tables. Anyone see a problem with that?
>>
>> Hmm yeah, seems i was thinking too complicated...here is a cleaned up
>> version
>> of this idea.
>
> Do we consider this for 9.1 or should I add this to the CF-Next for 9.2?
Since there were quite a few votes for doing this in 9.1, no
dissenting votes, and it's a very small change, I went ahead and
committed it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-04-08 19:56:49 | Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-08 19:43:39 | Re: Typed-tables patch broke pg_upgrade |