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

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>,<euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Date: 2012-06-02 13:35:24
Message-ID: 4FC9D04C0200002500047F92@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Euler Taveira wrote:
> On 27-05-2012 10:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> OK, let me propose another approach: add pg_size_pretty(int).
>> If we do this, all usability and performance problems will be
>> solved.
>
> I wouldn't like to add another function but if it solves both
> problems... +1.

It fixes Tom's example and doesn't break anything else I can find, so
+1.

Is any further overloading needed to cover other cases which
previously worked, or does this cover it?

-Kevin

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2012-06-02 14:44:27 Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of)
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2012-06-02 05:49:25 relation complex types