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

Re: FSM rewrite committed, loose ends

From: "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Dimitri Fontaine" <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: FSM rewrite committed, loose ends
Date: 2008-09-30 12:45:37
Message-ID: 65937bea0809300545t9476c3dv489c34860e6fbac3@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Le mardi 30 septembre 2008, Heikki Linnakangas a écrit :
> > pg_relation_size() doesn't include the size of the FSM. Should it? I'm
> > thinking "no", but pg_total_relation_size() should.
>
> What's practical about pg_relation_size() and pg_total_relation_size() as
> of
> 8.3 is that the diff is the cumulated indexes storage volume. Your proposal
> makes it harder to get this information, but sounds good otherwise.
> Would it be possible to add in some new APIs to?
>  a. pg_relation_size()
>  b. pg_relation_fsm_size()
>  c. pg_relation_indexes_size()
>  d. pg_total_relation_size() = a + b + c


You forgot the toast size.

Best regards,
-- 
gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com

EnterpriseDB      http://www.enterprisedb.com

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-09-30 12:45:48
Subject: Re: FSM rewrite committed, loose ends
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2008-09-30 12:39:28
Subject: Re: FSM rewrite committed, loose ends

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