Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 18:01:33 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: shangzi.x@columbia.edu, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: relpages in pg_class
Message-ID: <20220819160133.l2m47puqpjzk3mrh@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Yv+wakQStXq0EsGu@momjian.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220819160133.l2m47puqpjzk3mrh%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-Aug-19, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 04:10:30AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> > 
> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/catalog-pg-class.html
> > Description:
> > 
> > From source code, the relpage is the number of blocks. But, at the document,
> > it is written as Size of the on-disk representation of this table in pages
> > (of size BLCKSZ).
> 
> Well, blocks and pages are the same size, so I don't see the problem.

If you think about operating system "blocks" rather than Postgres
"blocks", I can see how this can be interpreted differently.  I'm not
sure if this is a good place to make that distinction, though; I mean,
if we do, how many other places should we patch similarly?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Small aircraft do not crash frequently ... usually only once!"
                                  (ponder, http://thedailywtf.com/)