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

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:49:50AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> >> Assuming that's how 9.2 ships, we might as well wait to see if there
> >> are any real complaints from the field before we decide whether any
> >> changing is needed.
>
> So, here's a complaint: 9.2 is breaking our code for checking table sizes:
>
> postgres=# select pg_size_pretty(100);
> ERROR: function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not unique at character 8
> HINT: Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add
> explicit type casts.
> STATEMENT: select pg_size_pretty(100);
> ERROR: function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not unique
> LINE 1: select pg_size_pretty(100);
> ^
> HINT: Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add
> explicit type casts.
>
> Obviously, we can work around it though. Let's see if anyone else
> complains ...

Where are we on this? I still see this behavior:

test=> SELECT pg_size_pretty(100);
ERROR: function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not unique
LINE 1: SELECT pg_size_pretty(100);
^
HINT: Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add explicit type casts.

\df shows:

test=> \df pg_size_pretty
List of functions
Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument data types | Type
------------+----------------+------------------+---------------------+--------
pg_catalog | pg_size_pretty | text | bigint | normal
pg_catalog | pg_size_pretty | text | numeric | normal
(2 rows)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +