Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "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.
>
> We mostly tell people that table and relation are synonmous. Though
> there is a distinction, it seems error-prone to rely on that distinction
> in the API.
I am starting to warm up to the idea of using "relation" as the combined
total. Was that the proposal? Are we prepared to make that distinction
in other places?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
