--On 21. Dezember 2009 12:02:02 -0500 Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps invent pg_table_size() = base table + toast table + toast index
and pg_indexes_size() = all other indexes for table
giving us the property pg_table_size + pg_indexes_size =
pg_total_relation_size
Right; that's exactly the way I'm computing things now, I just have to
crawl way too much catalog data to do it. I also agree that if we
provide pg_table_size, the issue of "pg_relation_size doesn't do what I
want" goes away without needing to even change the existing
documentation--people don't come to that section looking for "relation",
they're looking for "table".
Bernd, there's a basic spec if you have time to work on this.
I see if i can get some time for it during christmas vacation (its on my
radar for a longer period of time). I'm still working on this NOT NULL
pg_constraint representation and would like to propose a patch fairly soon
for this.
--
Thanks
Bernd
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
