The attached patch integrates dbsize functions into the backend, as per
discussion on -hackers. The following functions are included:
pg_relation_size(text) - Get relation size by name/schema.name
pg_relation_size(oid)- Get relation size by OID
pg_tablespace_size(name) - Get tablespace size
Bruce Momjian 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_hea
Michael Paesold wrote:
> > relation_size_components() depends on total_relation_size() (which I
> > have to agree could be useful). I think relation_size_components() is
> > unecessary though - it looks like it was designed to show a summary
> > rather than as a view to be used by other clients (if
Dave Page wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 21:12
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> &g
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> [from memory] the relation_components function adds components in a
> questionable way, e.g. counting on index on the toast table as index. To
> me, that's internal implementation detail, and should be counted as
> toast table size too.
Agreed. The user doe
Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 June 2005 21:07
To: Dave Page
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
So drop total_relation_size(),
relation_size_components(), and
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 21:12
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
>
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 21:07
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
>
> > >
> > > So drop total_relation_size(),
Bruce Momjian wrote:
So drop total_relation_size(), relation_size_components(), and what
else?
But these answer easily the question I see most asked - how much space
in total does the relation occupy. I'd like to see at least one of
these, properly named and fixed w.r.t. schemas. Getti
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 24 June 2005 20:45
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 20:45
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
>
> > My personal view is that pg_database_size, pg_relation_size
Dave Page wrote:
> The following functions are currently in contrib/dbsize. As Bruce has
> suggested, we should discuss which functions should or shouldn't be
> moved into the backend, and which should be renamed.
>
> int8 pg_database_size(oid)
> int8 database_size(name)
>
> Both return the datab
The following functions are currently in contrib/dbsize. As Bruce has
suggested, we should discuss which functions should or shouldn't be
moved into the backend, and which should be renamed.
int8 pg_database_size(oid)
int8 database_size(name)
Both return the database size in bytes, the first by o
13 matches
Mail list logo
