| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why pg_size_pretty is volatile? |
| Date: | 2016-01-27 02:15:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFPsF4BP4DD5YWKmqeH_EjffVvZ4FgZwW_uHx-=y2KTbA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> 2016-01-26 2:00 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > Vitaly Burovoy pointed on bug in my patch - a pg_size_bytes was VOLATILE
>> > function. It is copy/paste bug - I used pg_size_pretty definition, so
>> > the
>> > question is: why pg_size_pretty is volatile? It should be immutable too.
>>
>> +1. This function relies only on the input of its argument to generate a
>> result.
>
>
> attached patch
>
> all tests passed
Pushed. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | leo | 2016-01-27 02:36:42 | Does pglogical support PG 9.4.5? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-01-27 02:03:11 | Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff |