Re: DBSize backend integration

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DBSize backend integration
Date: 2005-06-24 20:21:19
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E490E71C@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 21:12
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
>
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> >So drop total_relation_size(), relation_size_components(), and what
> >else?
>
> But these answer easily the question I see most asked - how
> much space
> in total does the relation occupy. I'd like to see at least one of
> these, properly named and fixed w.r.t. schemas. Getting
> total_relation_size() from relation_size_components() would
> be easy, so
> if we only keep one then keep relation_size_components().

relation_size_components() depends on total_relation_size() (which I
have to agree could be useful). I think relation_size_components() is
unecessary though - it looks like it was designed to show a summary
rather than as a view to be used by other clients (if that makes
sense!).

Regards, Dave.

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-24 21:15:38 Re: pg_terminate_backend idea
Previous Message Bob 2005-06-24 20:19:32 Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support