Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
Date
Msg-id 200507060311.j663B1T06783@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I could live with that.  Or "pg_total_relation_size".
>
> > The problem with "total", to me, is that it already is the total size of
> > the heap/index/toast.  Complete has the idea of adding additional
> > pieces, which I think fits best.
>
> [ shrug ]  I don't care --- if you do, then do that.
>
> I finally realized exactly what was bugging me about "dbfile_size": it
> seems to imply that we are measuring the size of one *file*, which is
> under no circumstance the definition of any of these functions (see
> file splitting behavior for relations exceeding 1GB).

Yes, that is an issue I considered.  I was more relying on the _idea_
that people thought it was a single file, but that is an implementation
detail that shouldn't be promoted.

> pg_relation_size plus pg_complete_relation_size is fine.  Ship it...

OK.

--
  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

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Quick little \h enhancement for psql