On 24/11/15 06:31, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-11-23 18:04 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
<mailto: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
perhaps pg_size_bites for those people who want: KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB,
PiB, ,.. ??? :-)
Cheers,
Gavin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
