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
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
email@example.com | (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