Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.
I am starting to warm up to the idea of using "relation" as the combined total. Was that the proposal? Are we prepared to make that distinction in other places? -- 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 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
