Re: Dbsize backend integration

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 2:16 AM
To: Dave Page
Cc: PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration

> OK, so you went with relation as heap/index/toast only, and table as the
> total of them. I am not sure that makes sense because we usually equate
> relation with table, and an index isn't a relation, really.

Err, yes - posted that before I got your reply!

> Do we have to use pg_object_size? Is there a better name? Are
> indexes/toasts even objects?

Yeah, I think perhaps pg_object_size is better in some ways than pg_relation_size, however I stuck with relation because (certainly in pgAdmin world) we tend to think of pretty much anything as an object. I could go either way on that though, however Michael doesn't seem so keen.

So, one for pg_object_size, one on the fench and one against :-). Anyone else got a preference?

Regards, Dave.