Dave Page wrote: > > >>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). > > > > > > Yeah, I read those discussions, and think you were better > > off then than you > > > are now, which is why I went back to it somewhat. > > > > To be honest, the amount of effort being expended on this naming > > discussion far outweighs the benefits. Maybe it's time for a core > > member to step in and just resolve it - one way or the other? > > Agreed. The current names were discussed (at some length!) by Bruce & I > before I reworked the latest version of the patch. Can we just settle on > that?
If we go pg_table_size() and pg_relation_size(), which is object-only and which is heap + index + toast? I think ideally we want pg_relation_size to be the combined one, but then we have pg_table_size that works on indexes and toast too, and that is confusing, and we don't want to add index and toast versions. Or is an index a relation? And TOAST? OK, how about pg_relation_size for heap/index/toast, and pg_complete_relation_size for the combined total. -- 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
