2009/12/21 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> To answer Rafael's concerns directly: you're right that this is
>> confusing. pg_relation_size is always going to do what it does right
>> now just because of how that fits into the design of the database.
>> However, the documentation should be updated to warn against the issue
>> with TOAST here. And it should be easier to get the total you're like
>> to see here: main relation + toasted parts, since that's what most DBAs
>> want in this area.
>
> Perhaps invent pg_table_size() = base table + toast table + toast index
> and pg_indexes_size() = all other indexes for table
> giving us the property pg_table_size + pg_indexes_size =
> pg_total_relation_size
Did you mean :pg_table_size() = base table + toast tablepg_indexes_size() = base indexes + toast indexes
?
>
> I think the 8.4 documentation already makes it apparent that
> pg_relation_size is a pretty low-level number. If we invent other
> functions with obvious names, that should be sufficient.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
