Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Date
Msg-id 15011.1406757366@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea  (Josh Loberant <jamracing@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Loberant <jamracing@gmail.com> writes:
> Was this issue ever resolved?
> We are now having Nagios checks failing due to the pg_size_pretty function,
> and the check runs fine on my local machine 9.1 (fails on 9.2 and 9.3, both
> having two pg_size_pretty functions).

Nothing was done about it so far for lack of consensus.

Given that there are now three release branches that behave like this,
fixing the Nagios check seems like the advisable answer.  Just cast the
argument to bigint (or numeric, if that seems like a better idea).
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Loberant
Date:
Subject: Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)