On 5/27/12 2:54 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
On 27-05-2012 10:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
OK, let me propose another approach: add pg_size_pretty(int).
If we do this, all usability and performance problems will be solved.
I wouldn't like to add another function but if it solves both problems... +1.
FWIW, I would argue that the case of pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024) is pretty
contrived... when would you actually do something like that? ISTM that any time
you're using pg_size_pretty you'd be coming off a real datatype.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
