Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <> writes:
> > 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
> > TOAST?
> All the backend code thinks so --- anything that has an entry in
> pg_class is a relation.  So personally I don't find "table" and
> "relation" confusing in this context.  But I can see it might be
> confusing to people not familiar with PG jargon.
> > OK, how about pg_relation_size for heap/index/toast, and
> > pg_complete_relation_size for the combined total.
> I could live with that.  Or "pg_total_relation_size".

The problem with "total", to me, is that it already is the total size of
the heap/index/toast.  Complete has the idea of adding additional
pieces, which I think fits best.

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

Reply via email to