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 29466.1338902259@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Assuming that's how 9.2 ships, we might as well wait to see if there
>> are any real complaints from the field before we decide whether any
>> changing is needed.

> We could add it to the catalog without forcing an initdb.

Ugh.

> If we're just leaving it, should we take it off the open items list,
> or leave it in there "in case something else shows up"?

Let's just take it off the list.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kohei KaiGai
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] Interface of Row Level Security
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: "page is not marked all-visible" warning in regression tests