Re: FSM rewrite committed, loose ends

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Le mardi 30 septembre 2008, Heikki Linnakangas a écrit :
> > pg_relation_size() doesn't include the size of the FSM. Should it? I'm
> > thinking "no", but pg_total_relation_size() should.
>
> What's practical about pg_relation_size() and pg_total_relation_size() as
> of
> 8.3 is that the diff is the cumulated indexes storage volume. Your proposal
> makes it harder to get this information, but sounds good otherwise.
> Would it be possible to add in some new APIs to?
> a. pg_relation_size()
> b. pg_relation_fsm_size()
> c. pg_relation_indexes_size()
> d. pg_total_relation_size() = a + b + c

You forgot the toast size.

Best regards,
--
gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device