From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Frank Lanitz <frank(at)frank(dot)uvena(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_database_size differs from df -s |
Date: | 2012-06-06 15:49:47 |
Message-ID: | 11221.1338997787@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Frank Lanitz <frank(at)frank(dot)uvena(dot)de> writes:
> I've got an issue I'm not sure I might have a misunderstanding. When
> calling
> select sum(pg_database_size(datid)) as total_size from pg_stat_database
> the result is much bigger than running a df -s over the postgres folder
> - Its about factor 5 to 10 depending on database.
Did you mean "du -s"?
> My understanding was, pg_database_size is the database size on disc. Am
> I misunderstanding the docu here?
For me, pg_database_size gives numbers that match up fairly well with
what "du" says. I would not expect an exact match, since du probably
knows about filesystem overhead (such as metadata) whereas
pg_database_size does not. Something's fishy if it's off by any large
factor, though. Perhaps you have some tables in a nondefault
tablespace, where du isn't seeing them?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gabriele Bartolini | 2012-06-06 15:51:46 | Re: Postgres 9.1 Synchronous Replication and stuck queries during sync repl setup |
Previous Message | Alban Hertroys | 2012-06-06 15:01:24 | Re: problem after upgrade db missing |