Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200507041406.j64E6hY04108@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote: > "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes: > > Aside from the fact that's a change to the API that we had settled on, > > it doesn't solve the actual problem of needing a suitable name for a > > function that returns the size of a table /or/ index. pg_relation_size() > > or pg_table_size() can't be used for precisely the reason they were > > rejected for that purpose in the first place. > > Rejected by whom? pg_relation_size is an excellent choice for that. We mostly tell people that table and relation are synonmous. Though there is a distinction, it seems error-prone to rely on that distinction in the API. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: