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

Re: psql \dt and table size

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: psql \dt and table size
Date: 2011-04-08 19:56:11
Message-ID: BANLkTi=VuA-UcK=htkMjo1xqO=C2RaDy9Q@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
> --On 28. März 2011 13:38:23 +0100 Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
>>> But I think we can just call pg_table_size() regardless in 9.0+; I
>>> believe it'll return the same results as pg_relation_size() on
>>> non-tables.  Anyone see a problem with that?
>>
>> Hmm yeah, seems i was thinking too complicated...here is a cleaned up
>> version
>> of this idea.
>
> Do we consider this for 9.1 or should I add this to the CF-Next for 9.2?

Since there were quite a few votes for doing this in 9.1, no
dissenting votes, and it's a very small change, I went ahead and
committed it.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2011-04-08 19:56:49
Subject: Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-04-08 19:43:39
Subject: Re: Typed-tables patch broke pg_upgrade

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