Re: [PATCH] expand the units that pg_size_pretty supports on output
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] expand the units that pg_size_pretty supports on output |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAApHDvoWuEtD8ec3CkEZXQn6m2ZFBe5MU4gm226ksZyUW5LPKQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] expand the units that pg_size_pretty supports on output (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 07:31, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > David Christensen <david.christensen@crunchydata.com> writes: > > Enclosed is the patch to change the return type to numeric, as well as one for expanding units to > > add PB and EB. > > Can we really get away with changing the return type? That would > by no stretch of the imagination be free; one could expect breakage > of a few user views, for example. That's a good point. We should probably leave it alone then. I had had it in mind that it might be ok since we did this for extract() in 14. At least we have date_part() as a backup there. I'm fine to leave the return value of pg_size_bytes as-is. > Independently of that, I'm pretty much -1 on going further than PB. > Even if the additional abbreviations you mention are actually recognized > standards, I think not that many people are familiar with them, and such > input is way more likely to be a typo than intended data. I'm fine with that too. In [1] I mentioned my concerns with adding all the defined units up to Yottabyte. David reduced that down to just exabytes, but I think if we're keeping pg_size_bytes returning bigint then drawing the line at PB seems ok to me. Anything more than pg_size_bytes('8 EB') would overflow. David [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvp9ym+RSQNGoSRPjH+j6TJ1tFBhfT+JoLFf_RbZq1EszQ@mail.gmail.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: