Re: psql \dt and table size

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: psql \dt and table size
Date: 2011-04-07 19:03:37
Message-ID: B90931B87DAF567A50AF641C@apophis.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--On 28. März 2011 13:38:23 +0100 Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:

>> But I think we can just call pg_table_size() regardless in 9.0+; I
>> believe it'll return the same results as pg_relation_size() on
>> non-tables. Anyone see a problem with that?
>
> Hmm yeah, seems i was thinking too complicated...here is a cleaned up version
> of this idea.

Do we consider this for 9.1 or should I add this to the CF-Next for 9.2?

--
Thanks

Bernd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-04-07 19:36:43 psql linestyle unicode and client encoding
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2011-04-07 18:49:46 Re: Process local hint bit cache