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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Дата
Msg-id 15011.1406757366@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea  (Josh Loberant <jamracing@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Josh Loberant <jamracing@gmail.com> writes:
> Was this issue ever resolved?
> We are now having Nagios checks failing due to the pg_size_pretty function,
> and the check runs fine on my local machine 9.1 (fails on 9.2 and 9.3, both
> having two pg_size_pretty functions).

Nothing was done about it so far for lack of consensus.

Given that there are now three release branches that behave like this,
fixing the Nagios check seems like the advisable answer.  Just cast the
argument to bigint (or numeric, if that seems like a better idea).
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Josh Loberant
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)