Re: custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes
Date: 2015-11-23 17:31:19
Message-ID: CAFj8pRAuupw3JwBZiXB0L98GfTD1xV2E4gmDTVhf9a=pOgvCRQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2015-11-23 18:04 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> > On 11/23/15 3:11 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> >> +1 to both pg_size_bytes() and ::bytesize. Both contribute to making the
> >> statements more self-documenting.
>
> > The function seems like overkill to me if we have the type. Just my
> > opinion though. I'm thinking the type could just be called 'size' too
> > (or prettysize?). No reason it has to be tied to bytes (in particular
> > this would work for bits too).
>
> Please, no. That's *way* too generic a name.
>
> I do not actually agree with making a type for this anyway. I can
> tolerate a function, but adding a datatype is overkill; and it will
> introduce far more definitional issues than it's worth. (eg, which
> other types should have casts to/from it, and at what level)
>

so pg_size_bytes is good enough for everybody?

Regards

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-11-23 17:41:34 Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-11-23 17:23:30 Re: Declarative partitioning