On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 18:18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 15:37, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Why would it be useful to use pg_size_pretty on xlog locations?
>>> -1 because of the large expense of bigint->numeric->whatever conversion
>>> that would be added to existing uses.
>
>> Given the expense, perhaps we need to different (overloaded) functions instead?
>
> That would be a workable solution, but I continue to not believe that
> this is useful enough to be worth the trouble.
There's certainly some use to being able to prettify it. Wouldn't a
pg_size_pretty(numeric) also be useful if you want to pg_size_() a
sum() of something? Used on files it doesn't make too much sense,
given how big those files have to be, but it can be used on other
things as well...
I can see a usecase for having a pg_size_pretty(numeric) as an option.
Not necessarily a very big one, but a >0 one.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
