Thread: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

From
Date:
> > I have a new idea --- pg_storage_size().  
>
> I'm not against that one, but I think Tom's point is vaild. I cannot
> think of anything better at the moment though (maybe pg_component_size,
> but that's equally random) :-(
> 
> Anyone else? Please? Someone? Anyone? :-)

Maybe pg_trait_size() or pg_property_size() will do?


-- 

Victor

---- Msg sent via @Mail ISP MiTS - http://www.mits.lv/

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
viy@mits.lv wrote:
> > > I have a new idea --- pg_storage_size().
> >
> > I'm not against that one, but I think Tom's point is vaild. I cannot
> > think of anything better at the moment though (maybe pg_component_size,
> > but that's equally random) :-(
> >
> > Anyone else? Please? Someone? Anyone? :-)
>
> Maybe pg_trait_size() or pg_property_size() will do?

I don't think so.  I think trait and property suggests an aspect of the
object, so saying trait/property size is saying I am talking about an
aspect of the object, while for a heap, its size is really its size, it
isn't an aspect of its size.

--
  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

Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

From
Greg Stark
Date:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

> I don't think so.  I think trait and property suggests an aspect of the
> object, so saying trait/property size is saying I am talking about an
> aspect of the object, while for a heap, its size is really its size, it
> isn't an aspect of its size.

I haven't been following this discussion but, uh, does the fact that I have
absolutely no clue what pg_trait_size() or pg_property_size() would be
measuring count for anything? My best guess here is that it's for measuring
the space taken up by a column which doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think you need to think about unambiguous words that help the user
understand what the function does; words that the user might guess if they
were looking for a function to do that, whatever that is.

Not words that are sufficiently vague as to include whatever it's actually
doing but offer no clue what that is. There are an infinite number of such
words to pick and no way for the user to figure out what he or she is looking
for.

--
greg