2015-11-23 18:04 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: > > On 11/23/15 3:11 AM, Corey Huinker wrote: > >> +1 to both pg_size_bytes() and ::bytesize. Both contribute to making the > >> statements more self-documenting. > > > The function seems like overkill to me if we have the type. Just my > > opinion though. I'm thinking the type could just be called 'size' too > > (or prettysize?). No reason it has to be tied to bytes (in particular > > this would work for bits too). > > Please, no. That's *way* too generic a name. > > I do not actually agree with making a type for this anyway. I can > tolerate a function, but adding a datatype is overkill; and it will > introduce far more definitional issues than it's worth. (eg, which > other types should have casts to/from it, and at what level) >
so pg_size_bytes is good enough for everybody? Regards Pavel > > regards, tom lane >
