| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(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 17:04:29 |
| Message-ID: | 6109.1448298269@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-23 17:09:57 | Re: [DESIGN] ParallelAppend |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-11-23 16:59:04 | Re: custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes |