On Monday 04 July 2005 13:25, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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).

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.  

Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

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

Reply via email to