Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: 03 July 2005 17:10 > To: Dawid Kuroczko > Cc: Andreas Pflug; Dave Page; Bruce Momjian; > PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration > > Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42@gmail.com> writes: > > Oh, I think pg_dbfile_size is best so far. > > I think it's by far the ugliest suggestion yet :-( Why? It does exactly what it says on the tin! It might not be that nice, but it does describe what it does - and noone yet has come up with anything less ambiguous or misleading imho. > Andreas's suggestion of having just one function with a bool parameter > might be a workable compromise. Aside from the fact that's a change to the API that we had settled on, it doesn't solve the actual problem of needing a suitable name for a function that returns the size of a table /or/ index. pg_relation_size() or pg_table_size() can't be used for precisely the reason they were rejected for that purpose in the first place. Regards, Dave.
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> Aside from the fact that's a change to the API that we had settled on,
> it doesn't solve the actual problem of needing a suitable name for a
> function that returns the size of a table /or/ index. pg_relation_size()
> or pg_table_size() can't be used for precisely the reason they were
> rejected for that purpose in the first place.
Rejected by whom? pg_relation_size is an excellent choice for that.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes: > > Aside from the fact that's a change to the API that we had settled on, > > it doesn't solve the actual problem of needing a suitable name for a > > function that returns the size of a table /or/ index. pg_relation_size() > > or pg_table_size() can't be used for precisely the reason they were > > rejected for that purpose in the first place. > > Rejected by whom? pg_relation_size is an excellent choice for that. We mostly tell people that table and relation are synonmous. Though there is a distinction, it seems error-prone to rely on that distinction in the API. -- 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
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes: > > > Aside from the fact that's a change to the API that we had settled on, > > > it doesn't solve the actual problem of needing a suitable name for a > > > function that returns the size of a table /or/ index. pg_relation_size() > > > or pg_table_size() can't be used for precisely the reason they were > > > rejected for that purpose in the first place. > > > > Rejected by whom? pg_relation_size is an excellent choice for that. > > We mostly tell people that table and relation are synonmous. Though > there is a distinction, it seems error-prone to rely on that distinction > in the API. I am starting to warm up to the idea of using "relation" as the combined total. Was that the proposal? Are we prepared to make that distinction in other places? -- 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