Horton

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

Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>

View thread
From: Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-05-26T15:54:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 26-05-2012 01:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Ouch! But removing pg_size_pretty(numeric) causes another usability
> issue, e.g., pg_size_pretty(pg_xlog_location_diff(...)) fails. So how about
> removing pg_size_pretty(bigint) to resolve those two issues?
> I guess pg_size_pretty(numeric) is a bit slower than bigint version, but
> I don't think that such a bit slowdown of pg_size_pretty() becomes
> a matter practically. No?
> 
That's what I proposed at [1]. +1 for dropping the pg_size_pretty(bigint).


[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4F315F6C.8030700@timbira.com


-- 
   Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira       http://www.timbira.com.br/
   PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento