Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Treat
Subject Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration
Date
Msg-id 200507041321.18141.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration  ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Monday 04 July 2005 10:11, Dave Page wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> > Sent: 04 July 2005 14:54
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Dawid Kuroczko; Andreas Pflug; Bruce Momjian;
> > PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration
> >
> > "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> > > Aside from the fact that's a change to the API that we had
> >
> > settled on,
> >
> > > it doesn't solve the actual problem of needing a suitable name for a
> > > function that returns the size of a table /or/ index.
> >
> > pg_relation_size()
> >
> > > or pg_table_size() can't be used for precisely the reason they were
> > > rejected for that purpose in the first place.
> >
> > Rejected by whom?  pg_relation_size is an excellent choice for that.
>
> Bruce didn't like it
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg01410.php), and
> you seemed to object as well
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg01247.php)
>
> Personally I'm beyond caring much now as the amount of time spent trying
> to name these simple functions is wildly disproportionate the the effort
> take to actually code them. I think we just need to agree there is no
> perfect name and rely on the comments and docs to guide people. I think
> the current names work OK, and Bruce and Dawid at least agree!
>

Actually I'd agree with Tom, pg_dbfile_size is ugly, and suggest to me I could
use a filename as an argument.  ISTM that if we think that functions like
pg_database_size and pg_tablespace_size all make sense, the natural extension
would be functions called pg_index_size to tell us the size of an index,
pg_table_size to tell us the size of a table (table+toast) without it's
indexes, and some form of pg_table_plus_indexes_size for a table and its
indexes for those that feel we need both.  I'm not sold we need a function
that can return either an index or table size, but if so something like
pg_object_size seems ambigious enough to work, and is future proof enough to
handle things like materialized views when and if they arise.

Just my .02 :-)

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Use of copydir vs. cp
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration