Re: FSM rewrite committed, loose ends

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Following that philosophy, I think the idea of adding a new optional
> "fork name" argument to pg_relation_size() is the right thing to do:

> pg_relation_size('footable') for size of the main data fork
> pg_relation_size('footable', 'fsm') for FSM size

+1. Note that the second form should also accept 'main' or some such
for orthogonality.

> There's currently two variants of both pg_relation_size and
> pg_total_relation_size, one takes an OID and one takes a relation name
> as argument. Any objections to having just one of each function, taking
> a 'regclass'? The user-visible behavior wouldn't change, but I thought
> I'd ask first in case I'm missing something.

Um, it would only not change for someone typing
pg_relation_size('literal'). Something like this:

select sum(pg_relation_size(relname)) from pg_class

would fail for lack of an implicit cast from name to regclass.
Now the above is pretty stupid --- it would be faster and more
schema-safe to be passing pg_class.oid --- so maybe we don't care
about breaking it.

On the whole I think it's probably a good change despite possible
incompatibility.

regards, tom lane