Re: DBSize backend integration

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DBSize backend integration
Date: 2005-06-24 20:06:39
Message-ID: 200506242006.j5OK6dI21415@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> > Sent: 24 June 2005 20:45
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
> >
> > > My personal view is that pg_database_size, pg_relation_size and
> > > pg_tablespace_size, as well as pg_size_pretty should be included. If
> > > others consider that the by name versions are also useful, then they
> > > should be included, but renamed for consistency. The other three
> > > functions should be dropped IMO.
> >
> > So drop total_relation_size(), relation_size_components(), and what
> > else?
>
> indexes_size()

What is the logic for removing that? Because it is an aggregate of all
indexes?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-06-24 20:12:14 Re: DBSize backend integration
Previous Message Dave Page 2005-06-24 19:58:09 Re: DBSize backend integration