Re: Add support for unit "B" to pg_size_pretty()

On 06.03.23 09:27, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 21:13, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 02.03.23 20:58, David Rowley wrote:
>>> I think I'd prefer to see the size_bytes_unit_alias struct have an
>>> index into size_pretty_units[] array. i.e:
>>
>> Ok, done that way. (I had thought about that, but I was worried that
>> that would be too error-prone to maintain. But I suppose the tables
>> don't change that often, and test cases would easily catch mistakes.)
>
> Patch looks pretty good. I just see a small spelling mistake in:
>
> +/* Additional unit aliases acceted by pg_size_bytes */
>
>> I also updated the documentation a bit more.
>
> I see I must have forgotten to add PB to the docs when pg_size_pretty
> had that unit added. I guess you added the "etc" to fix that? I'm
> wondering if that's the right choice. You modified the comment above
> size_pretty_units[] to remind us to update the docs when adding units,
> but the docs now say "etc", so do we need to? I'd likely have gone
> with just adding "PB" to the docs, that way it's pretty clear that new
> units need to be mentioned in the docs.

Ok, I have fixed the original documentation to that effect and
backpatched it.

The remaining patch has been updated accordingly and committed also.