On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 18:18, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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. > > 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
