Michael Paesold wrote:
> > Do we have to use pg_object_size? Is there a better name? Are
> > indexes/toasts even objects?
> Relation is not an ideal names, but I heard people talk about heap relation
> and index relation. Indexes and tables (and sequences) are treated in a
> similar way quite often. Think of ALTER TABLE example_index RENAME TO
> another_index. This is even less obvious. Of course in relational theory,
> an index would not be a relation, because an index is just implementation
> I don't like object_size any better, since that makes me rather think of
> large objects or rows as objects (object id...).
> Perhaps pg_table_size should be split into pg_table_size and
> pg_indexes_size, where pg_indexes_size is the aggregate of all indexes on a
> table und pg_table_size is just table+toast+toast-index.
> If noone has a better idea for pg_relation_size, I would rather keep it for
> consistency with the contrib module, and because it's not too far off.
Yea, but then we have toast and we would need another name. I suggested
pg_storage_size() because it relates to a storage unit (index, toast,
etc), and not a real object or relation.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
firstname.lastname@example.org | (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 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings