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

Re: xlog location arithmetic

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: xlog location arithmetic
Date: 2012-03-09 17:38:28
Message-ID: CABUevEzDiupP7upNo=buah+Y7LB70ci7T9+C12jkNKt=MsZ_ig@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2012-03-09 17:51:00
Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2012-03-09 17:29:55
Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11

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