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

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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to