> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailtogman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 20:45
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
>
> > My personal view is that pg_database_size, pg_relation_size and
> > pg_tablespace_size, as well as pg_size_pretty should be included. If
> > others consider that the by name versions are also useful, then they
> > should be included, but renamed for consistency. The other three
> > functions should be dropped IMO.
>
> So drop total_relation_size(), relation_size_components(), and what
> else?

indexes_size()

Regards, Dave.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailtogman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> > Sent: 24 June 2005 20:45
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration
> >
> > > My personal view is that pg_database_size, pg_relation_size and
> > > pg_tablespace_size, as well as pg_size_pretty should be included. If
> > > others consider that the by name versions are also useful, then they
> > > should be included, but renamed for consistency. The other three
> > > functions should be dropped IMO.
> >
> > So drop total_relation_size(), relation_size_components(), and what
> > else?
>
> indexes_size()

What is the logic for removing that? Because it is an aggregate of all
indexes?

--
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 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly