| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block |
| Date: | 2000-03-08 05:55:43 |
| Message-ID: | 38C5EB5F.CFCA1617@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I will fight this to my death. :-)
> I have cursed Ingres every time I needed to look at the Ingres data
> directory to find out which tables match which files. Even a lookup
> file is a pain. Right now, I can do ls -l to see which tables are
> taking disk space.
I had Ingres also, and found their scheme to be a royal pain. But that
was really only because they had such a *bad* schema that I'd have to
poke around forever to reconstruct a query which would give me file
names and table names. And then I'd have to print that and compare
that to the directories which were buried way down in a directory
tree.
But with Postgres, we can write a utility to do this for us, so I
think that it isn't so much of an issue. In fact, perhaps we could
have a backend function which could do this, so we could query the
sizes directly.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-03-08 06:05:05 | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-03-08 05:54:37 | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block |