Re: Server instrumentation patch

From: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
To: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Server instrumentation patch
Date: 2005-06-24 16:53:25
Message-ID: 034601c578dd$3d95f330$0f01a8c0@zaphod
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dave Page wrote:

>
> You have pg_database_size(oid) and database_size(name). Afaict, the
> latter is equivalent to:
>
> SELECT pg_database_size((SELECT oid FROM pg_database WHERE datname =
> 'foo'))

The typing is even more e.g. for tables or indexes, though. Of course you
can use the raw form, but why do we have pg_tables if there is pg_class
anyway.

> My main concern is that the names are inconsistent for no obvious
> reason.

That could be fixed by having:
pg_database_size(name)
pg_database_size(oid)

The original idea was probably to name "internal" functions with pg_ and
more user friendly ones without pg_. That does not mean it's a good idea.

> I also questioned whether or not the bloat of an additional
> function is worthwhile for what is probably a very small number of psql
> users that might use it (probably quite rarely), however if people say
> they would use it and that it's wothwhile, I wouldn't argue with it's
> inclusion.

Well, I don't feel this is really bloat. I have been using them since the
creation of the contrib module and have found them quite useful.

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-24 17:35:49 Re: Server instrumentation patch
Previous Message Michael Paesold 2005-06-24 16:48:10 Re: Server instrumentation patch