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)
