The same problem, missing oid's, occurs with several other system
views as well. If you have to do some serious work, it's always
pg_class you need.
oid's in these views would be nice, but only if all the system views
have the oid's of the underlaying objects. In case of pg_tables you
need the oid's of the schema and the table.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/views-overview.html
Regards,
Frank
Op 16 jun 2009, om 16:52 heeft Magnus Hagander het volgende geschreven:
Actually, is there any particular reason why we can't *add* that
column
to the view in a future version? We certainly shouldn't go modify it,
but adding to it should be pretty safe, no?
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Frank Heikens wrote:
Agreed.
Personally I wouldn't use pg_tables at all because of the missing
oid.
Would be nice to have in this view, but it can't be changed because
it's
a system-view. pg_class would do the job.
Regards,
Frank
Op 16 jun 2009, om 16:12 heeft Tom Lane het volgende geschreven:
Frank Heikens <frankheikens@xxxxxxx> writes:
pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size(schemaname || '.' || tablename))
At some point you're going to wish you'd used quote_ident() here.
regards, tom lane
PS: Personally I prefer to rely on pg_relation_size(oid), but to use
that you need to be looking directly at pg_class, not at pg_tables
which doesn't expose the oid column :-(
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
