| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea |
| Date: | 2012-06-04 20:36:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4FCD1C35.9060005@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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).
>> If we do this, all usability and performance problems will be solved.
>>
> 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... when would you actually do something like that? ISTM that any time you're using pg_size_pretty you'd be coming off a real datatype.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2012-06-04 22:00:07 | Re: Bug in new buffering GiST build code |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2012-06-04 20:32:33 | Re: VIP: new format for psql - shell - simple using psql in shell |