On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 18:18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 15:37, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> Why would it be useful to use pg_size_pretty on xlog locations?
>>>> -1 because of the large expense of bigint->numeric->whatever conversion
>>>> that would be added to existing uses.
>>> Given the expense, perhaps we need to different (overloaded) functions instead?
>> That would be a workable solution, but I continue to not believe that
>> this is useful enough to be worth the trouble.
> There's certainly some use to being able to prettify it. Wouldn't a
> pg_size_pretty(numeric) also be useful if you want to pg_size_() a
> sum() of something? Used on files it doesn't make too much sense,
> given how big those files have to be, but it can be used on other
> things as well...
> I can see a usecase for having a pg_size_pretty(numeric) as an option.
> Not necessarily a very big one, but a >0 one.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-09 18:40:36|
|Subject: Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database|
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2012-03-09 18:21:29|
|Subject: Re: check function patch|