Tom Lane wrote: > "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes: > > Aside from the fact that's a change to the API that we had settled on, > > it doesn't solve the actual problem of needing a suitable name for a > > function that returns the size of a table /or/ index. pg_relation_size() > > or pg_table_size() can't be used for precisely the reason they were > > rejected for that purpose in the first place. > > Rejected by whom? pg_relation_size is an excellent choice for that.
We mostly tell people that table and relation are synonmous. Though there is a distinction, it seems error-prone to rely on that distinction in the API. -- 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 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
