Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E490E929@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: 04 July 2005 14:54 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Dawid Kuroczko; Andreas Pflug; Bruce Momjian; > PostgreSQL-patches; PostgreSQL-development > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Dbsize backend integration > > "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. Bruce didn't like it (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg01410.php), and you seemed to object as well (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg01247.php) Personally I'm beyond caring much now as the amount of time spent trying to name these simple functions is wildly disproportionate the the effort take to actually code them. I think we just need to agree there is no perfect name and rely on the comments and docs to guide people. I think the current names work OK, and Bruce and Dawid at least agree! Regards, Dave.
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: