From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, shangzi.x@columbia.edu,
        pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: relpages in pg_class
In-reply-to: <20220819160133.l2m47puqpjzk3mrh@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20220819160133.l2m47puqpjzk3mrh@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Fri, 19 Aug 2022 18:01:33 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3203689.1660927195.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:39:55 -0400
Message-ID: <3203690.1660927195@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3203690.1660927195%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2022-Aug-19, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> 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?

Yeah, we use "blocks" and "pages" interchangeably, which is something
I don't feel a need to change; but evidently the OP didn't realize that.
This is a job for the glossary, perhaps?

			regards, tom lane