On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
Agreed. Attached patch introduces the overloaded funtion
>>> 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.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Noah Misch||Date: 2012-03-13 02:41:49|
|Subject: Re: Measuring relation free space|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-13 02:26:34|
|Subject: Re: wal_buffers, redux|