Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Can someone come up with a better name than total_relation_size(),
> because we already have relation_size()? The problem is that in the
> first case, relation means the relation/indexes/toast, and in the second
> it is just the heap. Should we call relation_size() pg_heap_size(). I
> prefer that.
Both "relation" and "heap" are PG-isms I think. Seems to me we should
be using "pg_table_size" for the "most natural" unit, which is either
heap+toast+toast_index or heap+toast+toast_index+table_indexes depending
on whether you agree with the SQL committee that indexes are an
implementation detail ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
