| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: psql \dt and table size |
| Date: | 2011-03-28 12:38:23 |
| Message-ID: | D38A7476E567AE955FC2EDDE@[172.26.14.62] |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On 26. März 2011 21:59:18 -0400 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> But I think we can just call pg_table_size() regardless in 9.0+; I
> believe it'll return the same results as pg_relation_size() on
> non-tables. Anyone see a problem with that?
Hmm yeah, seems i was thinking too complicated...here is a cleaned up
version of this idea.
--
Thanks
Bernd
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| psql_tablesize.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-28 12:38:42 | Re: Additional options for Sync Replication |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-28 12:34:57 | Re: Additional options for Sync Replication |