Robert Treat wrote:
> 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.
You are into the cycle we were in. We discussed pg_object size (too
vague) and pg_index_size (needs pg_toast_size too, and maybe toast
indexes; too many functions).
--
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
