Re: dbsize patch

From: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
To: "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: dbsize patch
Date: 2005-01-27 07:05:08
Message-ID: 003d01c5043e$8b372e60$0a01a8c0@zaphod
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Neil Conway wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 16:49 -0700, Ed L. wrote:
>> The attached dbsize patch:
>>
>> + makes relation_size(relname) include toast tables;
>> + adds aggregate_relation_size(relname) to count table data and indices;
>> + adds indices_size(relname) to report the size of indices for a
>> relation;
>>
>> I've minimally tested it against PostgreSQL 8.1devel on
>> i686-pc-linux-gnu,
>> compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5).
>
> Barring any objections, I'll apply this to HEAD tomorrow.

Perhaps you could rename indices_size to indexes_size. A quick google search
on "site:postgresql.org indices" and "site:postgresql.org indexes" shows
that indices is used much less (7,080) than indexes (23,400). Top hits for
indices are 7.1 docs, for indexes it's 7.3 and 7.4.
It seems to me that indexes is the term more commonly used with postgresql.

Best Regards,
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-01-27 07:08:30 Re: dbsize patch
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-01-27 06:53:33 Re: Move get_grosysid() to utils/cache/lsyscache.c