On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr
<oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote:
> I didn't check out earlier versions of this patch, but the latest one still
> changes pg_size_pretty() to emit PB suffix.
> I don't think it is worth it to throw a number of changes together like
> that.  We should focus on adding pg_size_bytes() first and make it
> compatible with both pg_size_pretty() and existing GUC units: that is
> support suffixes up to TB and make sure they have the meaning of powers of
> 2^10, not 10^3.  Re-using the table present in guc.c would be a plus.
> Next, we could think about adding handling of PB suffix on input and output,
> but I don't see a big problem if that is emitted as 1024TB or the user has
> to specify it as 1024TB in a GUC or argument to pg_size_bytes(): an minor
> inconvenience only.

+1 to everything in this email.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to