From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Frank Heikens <frankheikens(at)mac(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Whit Armstrong <armstrong(dot)whit(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_relation_size, relation does not exist |
Date: | 2009-06-16 14:52:55 |
Message-ID: | 4A37B1C7.2030307@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Actually, is there any particular reason why we can't *add* that column
to the view in a future version? We certainly shouldn't go modify it,
but adding to it should be pretty safe, no?
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Frank Heikens wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Personally I wouldn't use pg_tables at all because of the missing oid.
> Would be nice to have in this view, but it can't be changed because it's
> a system-view. pg_class would do the job.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
>
> Op 16 jun 2009, om 16:12 heeft Tom Lane het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Frank Heikens <frankheikens(at)mac(dot)com> writes:
>>> pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size(schemaname || '.' || tablename))
>>
>> At some point you're going to wish you'd used quote_ident() here.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>> PS: Personally I prefer to rely on pg_relation_size(oid), but to use
>> that you need to be looking directly at pg_class, not at pg_tables
>> which doesn't expose the oid column :-(
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Frank Heikens | 2009-06-16 15:12:28 | Re: pg_relation_size, relation does not exist |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma | 2009-06-16 14:51:24 | Re: Custom Fields Database Architecture |