Re: [HACKERS] why pg_size_pretty is volatile?

2016-01-26 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2016-01-26 2:00 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier : >> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> > Vitaly Burovoy pointed on bug in my patch - a pg_size_bytes was VOLATILE >> > function. It is copy/paste bug - I used pg_size

Re: [HACKERS] why pg_size_pretty is volatile?

2016-01-25 Thread Pavel Stehule
2016-01-26 2:00 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier : > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > Vitaly Burovoy pointed on bug in my patch - a pg_size_bytes was VOLATILE > > function. It is copy/paste bug - I used pg_size_pretty definition, so the > > question is: why pg_size_pretty is v

Re: [HACKERS] why pg_size_pretty is volatile?

2016-01-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Vitaly Burovoy pointed on bug in my patch - a pg_size_bytes was VOLATILE > function. It is copy/paste bug - I used pg_size_pretty definition, so the > question is: why pg_size_pretty is volatile? It should be immutable too. +1. This function

[HACKERS] why pg_size_pretty is volatile?

2016-01-25 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hi Vitaly Burovoy pointed on bug in my patch - a pg_size_bytes was VOLATILE function. It is copy/paste bug - I used pg_size_pretty definition, so the question is: why pg_size_pretty is volatile? It should be immutable too. Regards Pavel