Actually, is there any particular reason why we can't *add* that column
to the view in a future version? We certainly shouldn't go modify it,
but adding to it should be pretty safe, no?
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Frank Heikens wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Personally I wouldn't use pg_tables at all because of the missing oid.
> Would be nice to have in this view, but it can't be changed because it's
> a system-view. pg_class would do the job.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
>
> Op 16 jun 2009, om 16:12 heeft Tom Lane het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Frank Heikens <frankheikens@mac.com> writes:
>>> pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size(schemaname || '.' || tablename))
>>
>> At some point you're going to wish you'd used quote_ident() here.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>> PS: Personally I prefer to rely on pg_relation_size(oid), but to use
>> that you need to be looking directly at pg_class, not at pg_tables
>> which doesn't expose the oid column :-(
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
>
