Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Dawid Kuroczko" <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>,"Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>,"Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
Date: 2005-07-04 17:21:17
Message-ID: 200507041321.18141.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Monday 04 July 2005 10:11, Dave Page wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> > Sent: 04 July 2005 14:54
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Dawid Kuroczko; Andreas Pflug; Bruce Momjian;
> > PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration
> >
> > "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > > Aside from the fact that's a change to the API that we had
> >
> > settled on,
> >
> > > it doesn't solve the actual problem of needing a suitable name for a
> > > function that returns the size of a table /or/ index.
> >
> > pg_relation_size()
> >
> > > or pg_table_size() can't be used for precisely the reason they were
> > > rejected for that purpose in the first place.
> >
> > Rejected by whom?  pg_relation_size is an excellent choice for that.
>
> Bruce didn't like it
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg01410.php), and
> you seemed to object as well
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg01247.php)
>
> Personally I'm beyond caring much now as the amount of time spent trying
> to name these simple functions is wildly disproportionate the the effort
> take to actually code them. I think we just need to agree there is no
> perfect name and rely on the comments and docs to guide people. I think
> the current names work OK, and Bruce and Dawid at least agree!
>

Actually I'd agree with Tom, pg_dbfile_size is ugly, and suggest to me I could 
use a filename as an argument.  ISTM that if we think that functions like 
pg_database_size and pg_tablespace_size all make sense, the natural extension 
would be functions called pg_index_size to tell us the size of an index, 
pg_table_size to tell us the size of a table (table+toast) without it's 
indexes, and some form of pg_table_plus_indexes_size for a table and its 
indexes for those that feel we need both.  I'm not sold we need a function 
that can return either an index or table size, but if so something like 
pg_object_size seems ambigious enough to work, and is future proof enough to 
handle things like materialized views when and if they arise. 

Just my .02 :-)

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-07-04 17:25:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-07-04 17:01:40
Subject: Re: Use of copydir vs. cp

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-07-04 17:25:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-07-04 16:04:55
Subject: Re: Disable page writes when fsync off, add GUC

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group