Re: Server instrumentation patch
От | Michael Paesold |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Server instrumentation patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 034601c578dd$3d95f330$0f01a8c0@zaphod обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Server instrumentation patch ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote: > > You have pg_database_size(oid) and database_size(name). Afaict, the > latter is equivalent to: > > SELECT pg_database_size((SELECT oid FROM pg_database WHERE datname = > 'foo')) The typing is even more e.g. for tables or indexes, though. Of course you can use the raw form, but why do we have pg_tables if there is pg_class anyway. > My main concern is that the names are inconsistent for no obvious > reason. That could be fixed by having: pg_database_size(name) pg_database_size(oid) The original idea was probably to name "internal" functions with pg_ and more user friendly ones without pg_. That does not mean it's a good idea. > I also questioned whether or not the bloat of an additional > function is worthwhile for what is probably a very small number of psql > users that might use it (probably quite rarely), however if people say > they would use it and that it's wothwhile, I wouldn't argue with it's > inclusion. Well, I don't feel this is really bloat. I have been using them since the creation of the contrib module and have found them quite useful. Best Regards, Michael Paesold
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: