On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jim Nasby <j...@nasby.net> writes: >> 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). > >>> 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... > > Yeah, possibly. In any case, I don't think we're making either of these > changes in 9.2, because the time for forcing initdbs is past. It would > only be realistic to think about changing pg_size_pretty() if we come > across some other, much more compelling reason to force a system catalog > contents change. > > Assuming that's how 9.2 ships, we might as well wait to see if there > are any real complaints from the field before we decide whether any > changing is needed.
We cannot change a system catalog content at all. So, I'm worried that we receive such complaints after the release of 9.2 but cannot address that until 9.3. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
