On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> 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?
Agreed. Attached patch introduces the overloaded funtion
pg_size_pretty(numeric).
>>> 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.
>
> +1.
+1, too.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
