Dave Page wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Momjian > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 2:16 AM To: Dave > Page Cc: PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: > [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration > > > OK, so you went with relation as heap/index/toast only, and table as the > > total of them. I am not sure that makes sense because we usually equate > > relation with table, and an index isn't a relation, really. > > Err, yes - posted that before I got your reply! > > > Do we have to use pg_object_size? Is there a better name? Are > > indexes/toasts even objects? > > Yeah, I think perhaps pg_object_size is better in some ways than > pg_relation_size, however I stuck with relation because (certainly in > pgAdmin world) we tend to think of pretty much anything as an object. > I could go either way on that though, however Michael doesn't seem so > keen. > > So, one for pg_object_size, one on the fench and one against :-). Anyone > else got a preference?
I have a new idea --- pg_storage_size(). That would do just the toast/index/heap, and pg_relation_size() gets a total of them all, and only works on heap, no index or toast. How is that? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
