> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Treat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 04 July 2005 18:21
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; Dawid Kuroczko; Andreas Pflug; Bruce Momjian; 
> PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration
> Actually I'd agree with Tom, pg_dbfile_size is ugly, and 
> suggest to me I could 
> use a filename as an argument.  

I won't repeat Bruce's reply to you, but as an FYI, the reason Bruce
suggested pg_dbfile_size over the nicer pg_file_size is that our
instrumentation patch includes that particular function, which does
accept a filename (provided it's under $PGDATA or the log directory).
Dbfile was meant to indicate it's a database related file, rather than
some arbitrary filename.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to