Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwZPJX-u8t8S817fHd3L1VcydKYeADAJu8A-BhXvzPzbsw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> I think Bruce's summary is a bit revisionist.
I would say it's a tempest in a teapot.
What I think we should do is accept "kb" and the rest case-insensitively,
print them all in all-upper-case always, and tell standards pedants
to get lost. The idea of introducing either a GUC or new function names
is just silly; it will cause far more confusion and user code breakage
than will result from just leaving well enough alone.
I wouldn't mind fixing case sensitivity in the process...but I don't think we need to touch the GUC infrastructure at all.
For a product that has a reasonably high regard for the SQL standard I'd like to at least keep an open mind about other relevant standards - and if accommodation is as simple as writing a new function I'd see no reason to reject such a patch. pg_size_pretty never did seem like a good name for a function with its behavior...lets be open to accepting an improved version without a pg_ prefix.
We could even avoid a whole new function and add an "iB" template pattern to the to_char function - although I'm not sure that wouldn't be more confusing than helpful in practice.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: