Re: [GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data

2010-02-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Greg Smith writes: > > > Florian Weimer wrote: > > >> The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables > > >> into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect > > >> that, either. I think this is a bit surprisi

Re: [GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data

2010-01-24 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Smith writes: > > Florian Weimer wrote: > >> The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables > >> into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect > >> that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user > >> perspective,

Re: [GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data

2010-01-24 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Smith writes: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables >> into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect >> that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user >> perspective, these are part of the table

Re: [GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data

2010-01-21 Thread Greg Smith
Florian Weimer wrote: The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user perspective, these are part of the table storage (I understand that the

[GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data

2010-01-21 Thread Florian Weimer
The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user perspective, these are part of the table storage (I understand that the indices might be a diffe