From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration |
Date: | 2005-07-04 14:06:43 |
Message-ID: | 200507041406.j64E6hY04108@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > Aside from the fact that's a change to the API that we had settled on,
> > it doesn't solve the actual problem of needing a suitable name for a
> > function that returns the size of a table /or/ index. pg_relation_size()
> > or pg_table_size() can't be used for precisely the reason they were
> > rejected for that purpose in the first place.
>
> Rejected by whom? pg_relation_size is an excellent choice for that.
We mostly tell people that table and relation are synonmous. Though
there is a distinction, it seems error-prone to rely on that distinction
in the API.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-04 14:11:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-04 14:02:26 | Re: User's exception plpgsql |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-04 14:11:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-04 14:06:10 | Re: silence GCC4 warning |