Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I could live with that. Or "pg_total_relation_size".
>
> > The problem with "total", to me, is that it already is the total size of
> > the heap/index/toast. Complete has the idea of adding additional
> > pieces, which I think fits best.
>
> [ shrug ] I don't care --- if you do, then do that.
>
> I finally realized exactly what was bugging me about "dbfile_size": it
> seems to imply that we are measuring the size of one *file*, which is
> under no circumstance the definition of any of these functions (see
> file splitting behavior for relations exceeding 1GB).

Yes, that is an issue I considered. I was more relying on the _idea_
that people thought it was a single file, but that is an implementation
detail that shouldn't be promoted.

> pg_relation_size plus pg_complete_relation_size is fine. Ship it...

OK.

--
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 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)