Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Date: 2012-05-26 00:30:12
Message-ID: 7108.1337992212@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
In 9.1:

regression=# select pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024);
 pg_size_pretty 
----------------
 8192 kB
(1 row)

In HEAD:

regression=# select pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024);
ERROR:  function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not unique
LINE 1: select pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024);
               ^
HINT:  Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add explicit type casts.

The argument for adding pg_size_pretty(numeric) was pretty darn thin in
the first place, IMHO; it does not seem to me that it justified this
loss of usability.

			regards, tom lane

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff FrostDate: 2012-05-26 00:32:05
Subject: Re: Backends stalled in 'startup' state: index corruption
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-05-25 23:42:05
Subject: Re: heap metapages

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group