Greg Smith <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables >> into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect >> that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user >> perspective, these are part of the table storage (I understand that >> the indices might be a different story, but TOAST table are a fairly >> deep implementation detail and should perhaps be hidden here). > As of last week there's a new pg_table_size available that does what you > want here: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00288.php > I don't believe \dt+ has been updated yet to use that though; that's > worth considering for a minute, not sure anybody thought about it yet. We could only use pg_table_size against a backend >= 9.0, which would mean that the displayed results mean something different depending on which backend version psql is being used with. That's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but it does seem a bit evil. An alternative worth thinking about is to make it use pg_total_relation_size instead of pg_relation_size. That's available, with similar semantics, in all versions that have pg_relation_size either (ie, >= 8.1). Also, this is arguably more nearly the right thing since at the level of \dt+ I think people would expect indexes to get folded in too. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
