From: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: For review: dbsize patch |
Date: | 2005-06-27 15:51:29 |
Message-ID: | 024201c57b30$1aec2f20$0f01a8c0@zaphod |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
> The only remaining function that last week's brief discussion indicated
> was required is a replacement for total_relation_size() (or
> pg_table_size() as it might now be called). I didn't realise until a
> few minutes ago that this function (which is actually broken because it
> doesn't handle schemas) was only committed a couple of months ago
> (v1.5,
> http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/contrib/dbsize/dbsize.sql.in) >
> and has therefore never been in a release version.
>
> So should we include this new feature, and if so, how is it best added > -
> rewrite in C, or one long line in pg_proc?
IIRC the initially submitted patch for this contained a function written in
C. It was only afterwards converted to SQL because of a comment by someone
else. I will have a look in the archives.
What I would like to have is a function that returns the table size (+
toast) + indexes. If it would be called pg_table_size(), that would be ok.
We should have one with oid and another with text.
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-27 15:57:51 | Re: Fixing r-tree semantics |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-06-27 15:21:45 | Re: tsearch2 vs core? |