Michael Paesold wrote:
> > relation_size_components() depends on total_relation_size() (which I
> > have to agree could be useful). I think relation_size_components() is
> > unecessary though - it looks like it was designed to show a summary
> > rather than as a view to be used by other clients (if that makes
> > sense!).
>
> I agree that total_relation_size() is quite useful at least when used from
> the command line. It should give you the correct answer to what space a
> table including indexes and _toast_tables_ occupies.

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.

I think we are considering adding pg_* too. Anyway, this is the time to
add consistency.

--
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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq