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

Re: dbsize patch

From: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
To: "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: dbsize patch
Date: 2005-01-27 07:05:08
Message-ID: 003d01c5043e$8b372e60$0a01a8c0@zaphod (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Neil Conway wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 16:49 -0700, Ed L. wrote:
>> The attached dbsize patch:
>> + makes relation_size(relname) include toast tables;
>> + adds aggregate_relation_size(relname) to count table data and indices;
>> + adds indices_size(relname) to report the size of indices for a 
>> relation;
>> I've minimally tested it against PostgreSQL 8.1devel on 
>> i686-pc-linux-gnu,
>> compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5).
> Barring any objections, I'll apply this to HEAD tomorrow.

Perhaps you could rename indices_size to indexes_size. A quick google search 
on " indices" and " indexes" shows 
that indices is used much less (7,080) than indexes (23,400). Top hits for 
indices are 7.1 docs, for indexes it's 7.3 and 7.4.
It seems to me that indexes is the term more commonly used with postgresql.

Best Regards,

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-01-27 07:08:30
Subject: Re: dbsize patch
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-01-27 06:53:33
Subject: Re: Move get_grosysid() to utils/cache/lsyscache.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group