Re: [PATCH] expand the units that pg_size_pretty supports on output

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Christensen <david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)nttdata(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] expand the units that pg_size_pretty supports on output
Date: 2021-07-08 17:38:22
Message-ID: CAEZATCWFxMFcFBiAe3zM9z-HxXKDQAtm_Q01nOdbkpZYY+kZbA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 14:38, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I gave it a bit of exercise by running pgbench and calling this procedure:
>
> It ran 8526956 times, so with the loop that's 8.5 billion random
> numbers. No variations between the two functions. I got the same
> after removing the 0 - to test positive numbers.

Wow, that's a lot of testing! I just tried a few hand-picked edge cases.

> If you like, I can push this in my morning, or if you'd rather do it
> yourself, please go ahead.

No, I didn't get as much time as I thought I would today, so please go ahead.

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2021-07-08 17:52:38 Re: enable_resultcache confusion
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-07-08 17:33:28 Re: "debug_invalidate_system_caches_always" is too long