Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 June 2005 21:12
To: Bruce Momjian
Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
Bruce Momjian wrote:
So drop total_relation_size
Michael Paesold wrote:
relation_size_components() depends on total_relation_size() (which I
have to agree could be useful). I think relation_size_components() is
unecessary though - it looks like it was designed to show a summary
rather than as a view to be used by other clients (if that
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Can someone come up with a better name than total_relation_size(),
because we already have relation_size()? The problem is that in the
first case, relation means the relation/indexes/toast, and in the second
it is just the heap. Should we call
Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 June 2005 21:07
To: Dave Page
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
So drop total_relation_size(),
relation_size_components
Andreas Pflug wrote:
[from memory] the relation_components function adds components in a
questionable way, e.g. counting on index on the toast table as index. To
me, that's internal implementation detail, and should be counted as
toast table size too.
Agreed. The user doesn't
Dave Page wrote:
The following functions are currently in contrib/dbsize. As Bruce has
suggested, we should discuss which functions should or shouldn't be
moved into the backend, and which should be renamed.
int8 pg_database_size(oid)
int8 database_size(name)
Both return the database
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 June 2005 20:45
To: Dave Page
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
My personal view is that pg_database_size, pg_relation_size and
pg_tablespace_size, as well
Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 June 2005 20:45
To: Dave Page
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
My personal view is that pg_database_size, pg_relation_size
Bruce Momjian wrote:
So drop total_relation_size(), relation_size_components(), and what
else?
But these answer easily the question I see most asked - how much space
in total does the relation occupy. I'd like to see at least one of
these, properly named and fixed w.r.t. schemas.
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 June 2005 21:07
To: Dave Page
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
So drop total_relation_size(),
relation_size_components(), and what
else
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 June 2005 21:12
To: Bruce Momjian
Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
Bruce Momjian wrote:
So drop total_relation_size
11 matches
Mail list logo
