On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 09:22, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> Ok, I have fixed the original documentation to that effect and
> backpatched it.
Thanks for fixing that.
David
On 06.03.23 09:27, David Rowley wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 21:13, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
On 02.03.23 20:58, David Rowley wrote:
I think I'd prefer to see the size_bytes_unit_alias struct have an
index into size_pretty_units[] array. i.e:
Ok, done that way. (I had thought about that,
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 21:13, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 02.03.23 20:58, David Rowley wrote:
> > I think I'd prefer to see the size_bytes_unit_alias struct have an
> > index into size_pretty_units[] array. i.e:
>
> Ok, done that way. (I had thought about that, but I was worried that
> that
On 02.03.23 20:58, David Rowley wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 21:34, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
On 22.02.23 03:39, David Rowley wrote:
I think you'll need to find another way to make the aliases work.
Maybe another array with the name and an int to reference the
corresponding index in
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 11:23, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 09:32, Dean Rasheed 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.
>
> Maybe that's worthwhile if we were actually thinking
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 09:32, Dean Rasheed 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
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 19:58, David Rowley wrote:
>
> I think I'd prefer to see the size_bytes_unit_alias struct have an
> index into size_pretty_units[] array. i.e:
>
> struct size_bytes_unit_alias
> {
> const char *alias; /* aliased unit name */
> const int unit_index; /* corresponding
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 21:34, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 22.02.23 03:39, David Rowley wrote:
> > I think you'll need to find another way to make the aliases work.
> > Maybe another array with the name and an int to reference the
> > corresponding index in size_pretty_units.
>
> Ok, here is a
On 22.02.23 03:39, David Rowley wrote:
hmm. I didn't really code pg_size_pretty with aliases in mind. I don't
think you can do this. There's code in pg_size_pretty() and
pg_size_pretty_numeric() that'll not work correctly. We look ahead to
the next unit to check if there is one so we know we
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 12:47, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> >> diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/dbsize.c
> >> b/src/backend/utils/adt/dbsize.c
> >> index dbd404101f..9ecd5428c3 100644
> >> --- a/src/backend/utils/adt/dbsize.c
> >> +++ b/src/backend/utils/adt/dbsize.c
> >> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ struct
On 20.02.23 15:34, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 07:44:15AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
This patch adds support for the unit "B" to pg_size_pretty(). This makes it
It seems like what it actually does is to support "B" in pg_size_bytes()
- is that what you meant ?
yes
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 07:44:15AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> This patch adds support for the unit "B" to pg_size_pretty(). This makes it
It seems like what it actually does is to support "B" in pg_size_bytes()
- is that what you meant ?
pg_size_pretty() already supports "bytes", so this
12 matches
Mail list logo
