From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 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 17:31:19 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAuupw3JwBZiXB0L98GfTD1xV2E4gmDTVhf9a=pOgvCRQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2015-11-23 18:04 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <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
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-23 17:41:34 | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-23 17:23:30 | Re: Declarative partitioning |