From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration |
Date: | 2005-07-06 02:38:36 |
Message-ID: | 20929.1120617516@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I could live with that. Or "pg_total_relation_size".
> The problem with "total", to me, is that it already is the total size of
> the heap/index/toast. Complete has the idea of adding additional
> pieces, which I think fits best.
[ shrug ] I don't care --- if you do, then do that.
I finally realized exactly what was bugging me about "dbfile_size": it
seems to imply that we are measuring the size of one *file*, which is
under no circumstance the definition of any of these functions (see
file splitting behavior for relations exceeding 1GB).
pg_relation_size plus pg_complete_relation_size is fine. Ship it...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-06 02:55:38 | Re: oids vs composite types, in cvs head |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-07-06 02:18:56 | Re: timezone changes break windows and cygwin |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-06 03:11:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-06 01:18:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration |