Hi
>>> -1 from me. I don't think we should muck with the way pg_size_pretty >>> works. >>> >> >> new update - I reverted changes in pg_size_pretty >> > > Hi, > > I didn't check out earlier versions of this patch, but the latest one > still changes pg_size_pretty() to emit PB suffix. > > I don't think it is worth it to throw a number of changes together like > that. We should focus on adding pg_size_bytes() first and make it > compatible with both pg_size_pretty() and existing GUC units: that is > support suffixes up to TB and make sure they have the meaning of powers of > 2^10, not 10^3. Re-using the table present in guc.c would be a plus. > > Next, we could think about adding handling of PB suffix on input and > output, but I don't see a big problem if that is emitted as 1024TB or the > user has to specify it as 1024TB in a GUC or argument to pg_size_bytes(): > an minor inconvenience only. > Last version still support BP in pg_size_pretty. It isn't big change. PB isn't issue. We have to do significant decision - should to support SI units in pg_size_bytes? We cannot to change it later. There is disagreement for SI units in pg_size_pretty, so SI units in pg_size_bytes can be inconsistent. Regards Pavel > > -- > Alex > >
