Robert Treat wrote: > Actually I'd agree with Tom, pg_dbfile_size is ugly, and suggest to me I > could > use a filename as an argument. ISTM that if we think that functions like > pg_database_size and pg_tablespace_size all make sense, the natural extension > would be functions called pg_index_size to tell us the size of an index, > pg_table_size to tell us the size of a table (table+toast) without it's > indexes, and some form of pg_table_plus_indexes_size for a table and its > indexes for those that feel we need both. I'm not sold we need a function > that can return either an index or table size, but if so something like > pg_object_size seems ambigious enough to work, and is future proof enough to > handle things like materialized views when and if they arise.
You are into the cycle we were in. We discussed pg_object size (too vague) and pg_index_size (needs pg_toast_size too, and maybe toast indexes; too many functions). -- 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
