From: | David Christensen <david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(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: | 2021-07-07 19:56:46 |
Message-ID: | lz7di1vqwx.fsf@veeddrois.attlocal.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> David Christensen <david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com> writes:
>> Enclosed is the patch to change the return type to numeric, as well as one for expanding units to
>> add PB and EB.
>
> Can we really get away with changing the return type? That would
> by no stretch of the imagination be free; one could expect breakage
> of a few user views, for example.
Hmm, that's a good point, and we can't really make the return type polymorphic (being as there isn't
a source type of the given return value).
> Independently of that, I'm pretty much -1 on going further than PB.
> Even if the additional abbreviations you mention are actually recognized
> standards, I think not that many people are familiar with them, and such
> input is way more likely to be a typo than intended data.
If we do go ahead and restrict the expansion to just PB, the return value of pg_size_bytes() would
still support up to 8192 PB before running into range limitations. I assume it's not worth creating
a pg_size_bytes_numeric() with the full range of supported units, but that is presumably an option
as well.
Best,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-07-07 20:22:09 | Re: Enhanced error message to include hint messages for redundant options error |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-07 19:31:00 | Re: [PATCH] expand the units that pg_size_pretty supports on output |