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

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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