Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Loberant <jamracing(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Date: 2014-07-30 21:56:06
Message-ID: 15011.1406757366@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Loberant <jamracing(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Was this issue ever resolved?
> We are now having Nagios checks failing due to the pg_size_pretty function,
> and the check runs fine on my local machine 9.1 (fails on 9.2 and 9.3, both
> having two pg_size_pretty functions).

Nothing was done about it so far for lack of consensus.

Given that there are now three release branches that behave like this,
fixing the Nagios check seems like the advisable answer. Just cast the
argument to bigint (or numeric, if that seems like a better idea).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-07-30 22:04:40 Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-07-30 21:37:09 Re: New developer TODO suggestions