On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> wrote: > It stroke me today again, that \dt+ isn't displaying the acurate table size > for tables, since it uses pg_relation_size() till now. With having > pg_table_size() since PostgreSQL 9.0 available, i believe it would be more > useful to have the total acquired storage displayed, including implicit > objects (the mentioned case where it was not very useful atm was a table > with a big TOAST table).
I guess the threshold question for this patch is whether pg_table_size() is a "more accurate" table size or just a different one. It could possible be confusing to display one value in that column when the server is >= 9.0 and the client is >= 9.1, and a different value when the server is < 9.0 or the client is < 9.1. On the other hand, it's clear that there are several people in favor of this change, so maybe we should just go ahead and do it. Not sure. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
