>>You are into the cycle we were in. We discussed pg_object size (too
>>vague) and pg_index_size (needs pg_toast_size too, and maybe toast
>>indexes; too many functions).
>
> Yeah, I read those discussions, and think you were better off then than you
> are now, which is why I went back to it somewhat.
To be honest, the amount of effort being expended on this naming
discussion far outweighs the benefits. Maybe it's time for a core
member to step in and just resolve it - one way or the other?
Chris