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                        |               |  (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?


Reply via email to