Horton

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

Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>

View thread
From: Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
To: Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-06-04T20:36:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 5/27/12 2:54 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On 27-05-2012 10:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> OK, let me propose another approach: add pg_size_pretty(int).
>> If we do this, all usability and performance problems will be solved.
>>
> I wouldn't like to add another function but if it solves both problems... +1.

FWIW, I would argue that the case of pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024) is pretty contrived... when would you actually do something like that? ISTM that any time you're using pg_size_pretty you'd be coming off a real datatype.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net