2011/3/23 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié mar 23 17:24:59 -0300 2011:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> 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).
>>
>> I guess the threshold question for this patch is whether
>> pg_table_size() is a "more accurate" table size or just a different
>> one.
>
> Not including the toast table and index in the size is just plain wrong.
> Reporting the size without the toast objects is an implementation
> artifact that should not be done unless explicitely requested.
+1
can we enhance a detail for table and show more accurate numbers?
table size: xxx
toast size: xxx
indexes size: xxx
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
