From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql \dt and table size |
Date: | 2011-03-23 20:24:59 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin6xaym7_S51UvaESjtwMXxbLFTDgwPUpOP9-Xr@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
> It stroke me today again, that \dt+ isn't displaying the acurate table size
> for tables, since it uses pg_relation_size() till now. With having
> pg_table_size() since PostgreSQL 9.0 available, i believe it would be more
> useful to have the total acquired storage displayed, including implicit
> objects (the mentioned case where it was not very useful atm was a table
> with a big TOAST table).
I guess the threshold question for this patch is whether
pg_table_size() is a "more accurate" table size or just a different
one. It could possible be confusing to display one value in that
column when the server is >= 9.0 and the client is >= 9.1, and a
different value when the server is < 9.0 or the client is < 9.1.
On the other hand, it's clear that there are several people in favor
of this change, so maybe we should just go ahead and do it. Not sure.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2011-03-23 20:30:04 | Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-23 20:20:47 | Re: Re: making write location work (was: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication) |