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)
regards, tom lane
