Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-07-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
: PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration OK, so you went with relation as heap/index/toast only, and table as the total of them. I am not sure that makes sense because we usually equate relation with table, and an index isn't a relation

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-07-02 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2005 21:30 To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration Is a new version of this patch coming? Yup, attached. Per

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-07-02 Thread Andreas Pflug
Dave Page wrote: -Original Message- From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2005 21:30 To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration Is a new version of this patch coming? Yup

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-30 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 June 2005 12:46 To: Dave Page Cc: PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration I have a new idea --- pg_storage_size(). I'm not against that one, but I

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-30 Thread Michael Glaesemann
On Jun 30, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Dave Page wrote: -Original Message- From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 June 2005 12:46 snip / I have a new idea --- pg_storage_size(). I'm not against that one, but I think Tom's point is vaild. I cannot think of anything better at

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-30 Thread viy
I have a new idea --- pg_storage_size(). I'm not against that one, but I think Tom's point is vaild. I cannot think of anything better at the moment though (maybe pg_component_size, but that's equally random) :-( Anyone else? Please? Someone? Anyone? :-) Maybe pg_trait_size() or

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-30 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 June 2005 10:29 To: Bruce Momjian; Dave Page Cc: PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration Maybe pg_trait_size() or pg_property_size() will do? I

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-30 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Michael Glaesemann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 June 2005 10:01 To: Dave Page Cc: PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration I'm still unclear as to what exactly is trying to be captured

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk writes: Thanks Michael. We have 2 functions - 1 returns the on disk size of a table or index without any additional parts such as indexes or toast tables. The other function returns the total on disk size of a table and all associated indexes and toast tables

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-30 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk writes: I've not been following the thread closely, so maybe this was already proposed and rejected, but what about: [4 functions] That moves the goal posts somewhat. Fair enough. The two you described are OK by me. regards, tom

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Dave Page wrote: That would do just the toast/index/heap, and pg_relation_size() gets a total of them all, and only works on heap, no index or toast. The totalling version (whatever it ends up being called) should definitely work on toast tables, as it is a legitimate use case to want

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a new idea --- pg_storage_size(). I'm not against that one, but I think Tom's point is vaild. I cannot think of anything better at the moment though (maybe pg_component_size, but that's equally random) :-( Anyone else? Please? Someone? Anyone? :-)

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
Dave Page wrote: -Original Message- From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 2:16 AM To: Dave Page Cc: PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration OK, so you went with relation as heap/index/toast only

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

2005-06-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Dave Page wrote: The attached patch integrates dbsize functions into the backend, as per discussion on -hackers. The following functions are included: pg_relation_size(text) - Get relation size by name/schema.name pg_relation_size(oid)- Get relation size by OID

Re: [PATCHES] dbsize backend integration

2005-06-21 Thread Marc G. Fournier
If dbsize is being moved from contrib to the backend, it should be moved in in its entirety ... On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: This version is being removed from the patches queue because it does not address how to handle existing dbsize functions not moved into the main server.

Re: [PATCHES] dbsize backend integration

2005-06-14 Thread Bruce Momjian
Andreas Pflug wrote: As a start for a bunch of instrumentation functions that should be included in the backend as discussed previously, here are the dbsize functions. The dbsize.c file should go to the usual place, src/backend/utils/adt. How does this related to /contrib/dbsize? You have