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

Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> On 5/27/12 2:54 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> On 27-05-2012 10:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> OK, let me propose another approach: add pg_size_pretty(int).

>> I wouldn't like to add another function but if it solves both problems... +1.

> FWIW, I would argue that the case of pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024) is
> pretty contrived...

Yeah, possibly. In any case, I don't think we're making either of these
changes in 9.2, because the time for forcing initdbs is past. It would
only be realistic to think about changing pg_size_pretty() if we come
across some other, much more compelling reason to force a system catalog
contents change.

Assuming that's how 9.2 ships, we might as well wait to see if there
are any real complaints from the field before we decide whether any
changing is needed.

regards, tom lane