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. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
