Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 15:37, Tom Lane <t...@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? That would be a workable solution, but I continue to not believe that this is useful enough to be worth the trouble. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers