No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Date: 2012-05-26 00:30:12
Message-ID: 7108.1337992212@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

In 9.1:

regression=# select pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024);
pg_size_pretty
----------------
8192 kB
(1 row)

In HEAD:

regression=# select pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024);
ERROR: function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not unique
LINE 1: select pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024);
^
HINT: Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add explicit type casts.

The argument for adding pg_size_pretty(numeric) was pretty darn thin in
the first place, IMHO; it does not seem to me that it justified this
loss of usability.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Frost 2012-05-26 00:32:05 Re: Backends stalled in 'startup' state: index corruption
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-05-25 23:42:05 Re: heap metapages