On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 11:23, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 09:32, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> 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 of adding any > non-base 2 units in the future, but if we're not, perhaps it's better > just to have the smaller alias array which for Peter's needs will just > require 1 element + the NULL one instead of 6 + NULL. >
Maybe. It's the tradeoff between having a smaller array and more code (2 loops) vs a larger array and less code (1 loop). > In any case, I'm not really sure I see what the path forward would be > to add something like base-10 units would be for pg_size_bytes(). If > we were to change MB to mean 10^6 rather than 2^20 I think many people > would get upset. > Yeah, that's probably true. Given the way this and configuration parameters currently work, I think we're stuck with 1MB meaning 2^20 bytes. Regards, Dean