Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > If we go pg_table_size() and pg_relation_size(), which is object-only
> > and which is heap + index + toast? I think ideally we want
> > pg_relation_size to be the combined one, but then we have pg_table_size
> > that works on indexes and toast too, and that is confusing, and we don't
> > want to add index and toast versions. Or is an index a relation? And
> > TOAST?
>
> All the backend code thinks so --- anything that has an entry in
> pg_class is a relation. So personally I don't find "table" and
> "relation" confusing in this context. But I can see it might be
> confusing to people not familiar with PG jargon.
>
> > OK, how about pg_relation_size for heap/index/toast, and
> > pg_complete_relation_size for the combined total.
>
> I could live with that. Or "pg_total_relation_size".

The problem with "total", to me, is that it already is the total size of
the heap/index/toast. Complete has the idea of adding additional
pieces, which I think fits best.

--
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