Actually, is there any particular reason why we can't *add* that column to the view in a future version? We certainly shouldn't go modify it, but adding to it should be pretty safe, no?
-- Magnus Hagander Self: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Frank Heikens wrote: > Agreed. > > Personally I wouldn't use pg_tables at all because of the missing oid. > Would be nice to have in this view, but it can't be changed because it's > a system-view. pg_class would do the job. > > Regards, > Frank > > > Op 16 jun 2009, om 16:12 heeft Tom Lane het volgende geschreven: > >> Frank Heikens <frankheik...@mac.com> writes: >>> pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size(schemaname || '.' || tablename)) >> >> At some point you're going to wish you'd used quote_ident() here. >> >> regards, tom lane >> >> PS: Personally I prefer to rely on pg_relation_size(oid), but to use >> that you need to be looking directly at pg_class, not at pg_tables >> which doesn't expose the oid column :-( >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
