Michael Paesold wrote: > > relation_size_components() depends on total_relation_size() (which I > > have to agree could be useful). I think relation_size_components() is > > unecessary though - it looks like it was designed to show a summary > > rather than as a view to be used by other clients (if that makes > > sense!). > > I agree that total_relation_size() is quite useful at least when used from > the command line. It should give you the correct answer to what space a > table including indexes and _toast_tables_ occupies.
Can someone come up with a better name than total_relation_size(), because we already have relation_size()? The problem is that in the first case, relation means the relation/indexes/toast, and in the second it is just the heap. Should we call relation_size() pg_heap_size(). I prefer that. I think we are considering adding pg_* too. Anyway, this is the time to add consistency. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
