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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers