From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal - psql - show longest tables |
Date: | 2013-07-23 04:08:58 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCTCWk0nGDwqkhp72jBaekf_18iX4NvMgzK4-asFL47Qg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/7/23 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Is looking for the biggest tables a common enough thing that it should
>> be available to everyone, without needing custom customization?
>
> I don't really think so. It's surely not much harder than
>
> select relname, pg_relation_size(oid) from pg_class order by 2 desc;
>
> Moreover, the people who need this likely don't need it as a psql
> command, but rather as something available to monitoring tools.
I can do it - but it is not consistent with other psql commands - so
why we have \dt statement ? and this was is not simple for people that
are on basic level.
My motivations for this proposal are:
* comfortable usage of psql
* consistency with current psql design (I don't expect major
reimplementation and redesign in next 5 years) and its completation
* very simply implementation
we use a splunk, but when you have opened psql console, is not
comfortable to swith to splunk.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2013-07-23 04:11:45 | maintenance_work_mem and CREATE INDEX time |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2013-07-23 04:04:42 | Re: [9.4 CF 1] And then there were 5 |