On 24/11/15 06:31, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> 2015-11-23 18:04 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>>:
>
> Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> writes:
> > On 11/23/15 3:11 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> >> +1 to both pg_size_bytes() and ::bytesize. Both contribute to
> making the
> >> statements more self-documenting.
>
> > The function seems like overkill to me if we have the type. Just my
> > opinion though. I'm thinking the type could just be called
> 'size' too
> > (or prettysize?). No reason it has to be tied to bytes (in
> particular
> > this would work for bits too).
>
> Please, no. That's *way* too generic a name.
>
> I do not actually agree with making a type for this anyway. I can
> tolerate a function, but adding a datatype is overkill; and it will
> introduce far more definitional issues than it's worth. (eg, which
> other types should have casts to/from it, and at what level)
>
>
> so pg_size_bytes is good enough for everybody?
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
perhaps pg_size_bites for those people who want: KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB,
PiB, ,.. ??? :-)
Cheers,
Gavin
