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

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:49:50AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 
> >> Assuming that's how 9.2 ships, we might as well wait to see if there
> >> are any real complaints from the field before we decide whether any
> >> changing is needed.
> 
> So, here's a complaint: 9.2 is breaking our code for checking table sizes:
> 
> postgres=# select pg_size_pretty(100);
> ERROR:  function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not unique at character 8
> HINT:  Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add
> explicit type casts.
> STATEMENT:  select pg_size_pretty(100);
> ERROR:  function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not unique
> LINE 1: select pg_size_pretty(100);
>                ^
> HINT:  Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add
> explicit type casts.
> 
> Obviously, we can work around it though.  Let's see if anyone else
> complains ...

Where are we on this?  I still see this behavior:
test=> SELECT pg_size_pretty(100);ERROR:  function pg_size_pretty(integer) is not uniqueLINE 1: SELECT
pg_size_pretty(100);              ^HINT:  Could not choose a best candidate function. You might need to add explicit
typecasts.
 

\df shows:
test=> \df pg_size_pretty                               List of functions   Schema   |      Name      | Result data
type| Argument data types |  Type------------+----------------+------------------+---------------------+--------
pg_catalog| pg_size_pretty | text             | bigint              | normal pg_catalog | pg_size_pretty | text
   | numeric             | normal(2 rows)
 

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +