> On 12/02/16 10:19, Dean Rasheed wrote: >> This seems like a reasonable first patch for me as a committer, so >> I'll take it unless anyone else was planning to do so. >
So looking at this, it seems that for the most part pg_size_bytes() will parse any output produced by pg_size_pretty(). The exception is that there are 2 versions of pg_size_pretty(), one that takes bigint and one that takes numeric, whereas pg_size_bytes() returns bigint, so it can't handle all inputs. Is there any reason not to make pg_size_bytes() return numeric? It would still be compatible with the example use cases, but it would be a better inverse of both variants of pg_size_pretty() and would be more future-proof. It already works internally using numeric, so it's a trivial change to make now, but impossible to change in the future without introducing a new function with a different name, which is messy. Thoughts? Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
