Hello, Pavel!
That letter was not a complain against you. I'm sorry if it seems like
that for you.
It was an intermediate review with several points to be clear for _me_
from experienced hackers, mostly about a code design.
26.01.2016 07:05, Pavel Stehule пишет:
>> pg_proc.h has changed, so the CATALOG_VERSION_NO must be also changed.
> this is not a part of patch - only a commiter knows CATALOG_VERSION_NO
>
CATALOG_VERSION_NO is mentioned for a committer, it is not your fault.
>> III. There is no support of 'bytes' unit, it seems such behavior got
>> majority approval[2].
>
> No, because I have to use the supported units by configuration. The configuration supports only three chars long
units.Support for "bytes" was removed, when I removed proprietary unit table.
>
Point "III" is the only for the question "d". Also to collect any
possible features from the thread in one place.
>> V. The documentation lacks a note that the base of the "pg_size_bytes"
>> is 1024 whereas the base of the "pg_size_pretty" is 1000.
>
> It isn't true, base for both are 1024. It was designed when special table was used for pg_size_bytes. But when we
sharesame control table, then is wrong to use different table. The result can be optically different, but semantically
same.
>
Oops, I was wrong about a base of pg_size_pretty. It was a morning
after a hard night...
> negative values is fully supported.
You have mentioned it at least three times before. It is not my new
requirement or a point to your fault, it is an argument for
symmetry/asymmetry of the function.
> support of "bytes" depends on support "bytes" unit by GUC. When "bytes" unit will be supported, then it can be used
inpg_size_bytes immediately.
By the way there can be a comparison for a special size unit before
calling parse_memory_unit.
> Regards
> Pavel
>
>> [2]http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACACo5QW7fFsFfhKsTjtYcP4QF3Oh9zA14SC6Z3DXx2yssJjSw@mail.gmail.com
