From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes |
Date: | 2015-11-23 18:43:46 |
Message-ID: | 56535E62.6040805@archidevsys.co.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24/11/15 06:31, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> 2015-11-23 18:04 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>>:
>
> Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> > On 11/23/15 3:11 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> >> +1 to both pg_size_bytes() and ::bytesize. Both contribute to
> making the
> >> statements more self-documenting.
>
> > The function seems like overkill to me if we have the type. Just my
> > opinion though. I'm thinking the type could just be called
> 'size' too
> > (or prettysize?). No reason it has to be tied to bytes (in
> particular
> > this would work for bits too).
>
> Please, no. That's *way* too generic a name.
>
> I do not actually agree with making a type for this anyway. I can
> tolerate a function, but adding a datatype is overkill; and it will
> introduce far more definitional issues than it's worth. (eg, which
> other types should have casts to/from it, and at what level)
>
>
> so pg_size_bytes is good enough for everybody?
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
perhaps pg_size_bites for those people who want: KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB,
PiB, ,.. ??? :-)
Cheers,
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-23 18:44:22 | Re: Declarative partitioning |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-11-23 18:41:42 | New email address |