Re: psql \dt and table size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: psql \dt and table size
Date
Msg-id 20110321233209.GC27692@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to psql \dt and table size  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
Responses Re: psql \dt and table size
List pgsql-hackers
+1 for fixing this behavior in 9.1.  -1 for changing in 9.0, as the
change in behavior mid-release will cause more confusion than the
incomplete accounting does.

Cheers,
David.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 06:44:51PM +0100, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> It stroke me today again, that \dt+ isn't displaying the acurate
> table size for tables, since it uses pg_relation_size() till now.
> With having pg_table_size() since PostgreSQL 9.0 available, i
> believe it would be more useful to have the total acquired storage
> displayed, including implicit objects (the mentioned case where it
> was not very useful atm was a table with a big TOAST table).
> 
> Attached minor patch extends \dt to use pg_table_size() starting
> with PostgreSQL 9.0, not sure if we backport such changes though. It
> would be interesting for 9.1, however.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks
> 
>     Bernd


> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Chinese initdb on Windows
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: really lazy vacuums?