Robert Treat wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2008 08:37:59 Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There's currently two variants of both pg_relation_size and
pg_total_relation_size, one takes an OID and one takes a relation name
as argument. Any objections to having just one of each function, taking
a 'regclass'? The user-visible behavior wouldn't change, but I thought
I'd ask first in case I'm missing something.
Um, it would only not change for someone typing
pg_relation_size('literal'). Something like this:
select sum(pg_relation_size(relname)) from pg_class
would fail for lack of an implicit cast from name to regclass.
Now the above is pretty stupid --- it would be faster and more
schema-safe to be passing pg_class.oid --- so maybe we don't care
about breaking it.
I would be more concerned about people doing:
select pg_relation_size(tablename) from pg_tables;
since pg_tables is presented as a more user-friendly option to something like
pg_class this might be something more widely used, plus we don't have the
easy way out of just telling them to use the oid instead like we do with
pg_class.
That won't generally work either, because "tablename" is not
schema-qualified. With a WHERE clause, maybe.
I'm going go ahead with this change. If an unlucky query stops working,
fixing it is just a matter of adding a cast.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
