| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Dimitri Fontaine" <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: FSM rewrite committed, loose ends |
| Date: | 2008-09-30 14:00:51 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10809300700w2277d4bbu624308fbbc245f90@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> For convenience, would it be possible to see about having all this
>> provided by PostgreSQL?
>> a. pg_relation_size()
>> b. pg_relation_toast_size()
>> c. pg_relation_fsm_size()
>> d. pg_relation_indexes_size()
>> e. pg_total_relation_size() = a + b + c + d
>>
>> Are there some other things to add in the mix?
>
> Should pg_relation_indexes_size() include the FSMs of the indexes? Should
> pg_relation_toast_size() include the toast index and FSM as well?
It might be worth revisiting the near identical discussions we had
when Andreas & I integrated this stuff into the backend for 8.1.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-30 15:22:33 | Re: Index size increases after VACUUM FULL |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-30 13:53:52 | Re: FSM rewrite committed, loose ends |