| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea |
| Date: | 2012-10-10 18:49:50 |
| Message-ID: | 5075C34E.5030900@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> 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.
So, here's a complaint: 9.2 is breaking our code for checking table sizes:
postgres=# select pg_size_pretty(100);
ERROR: function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not unique at character 8
HINT: Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add
explicit type casts.
STATEMENT: select pg_size_pretty(100);
ERROR: function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not unique
LINE 1: select pg_size_pretty(100);
^
HINT: Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add
explicit type casts.
Obviously, we can work around it though. Let's see if anyone else
complains ...
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Corscadden | 2012-10-10 19:13:35 | Re: pg_largeobject implementation question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-10 18:46:53 | Re: September 2012 commitfest |