On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
> It stroke me today again, that \dt+ isn't displaying the acurate table size
> for tables, since it uses pg_relation_size() till now. With having
> pg_table_size() since PostgreSQL 9.0 available, i believe it would be more
> useful to have the total acquired storage displayed, including implicit
> objects (the mentioned case where it was not very useful atm was a table
> with a big TOAST table).
I guess the threshold question for this patch is whether
pg_table_size() is a "more accurate" table size or just a different
one. It could possible be confusing to display one value in that
column when the server is >= 9.0 and the client is >= 9.1, and a
different value when the server is < 9.0 or the client is < 9.1.
On the other hand, it's clear that there are several people in favor
of this change, so maybe we should just go ahead and do it. Not sure.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2011-03-23 20:30:04|
|Subject: Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-03-23 20:20:47|
|Subject: Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient
transaction-controlled synchronous replication)|