On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 09:32, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, I think it would be easier to just have a separate table for
> pg_size_bytes(), rather than reusing pg_size_pretty()'s table. I.e.,
> size_bytes_units[], which would only need name and multiplier columns
> (not round and limit). Done that way, it would be easier to add other
> units later (e.g., non-base-2 units).
Maybe that's worthwhile if we were actually thinking of adding any
non-base 2 units in the future, but if we're not, perhaps it's better
just to have the smaller alias array which for Peter's needs will just
require 1 element + the NULL one instead of 6 + NULL.
In any case, I'm not really sure I see what the path forward would be
to add something like base-10 units would be for pg_size_bytes(). If
we were to change MB to mean 10^6 rather than 2^20 I think many people
would get upset.
David
