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

On 5/27/12 2:54 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On 27-05-2012 10:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> OK, let me propose another approach: add pg_size_pretty(int).
>> If we do this, all usability and performance problems will be solved.
>>
> I wouldn't like to add another function but if it solves both problems... +1.

FWIW, I would argue that the case of pg_size_pretty(8*1024*1024) is pretty contrived... when would you actually do
somethinglike that? ISTM that any time you're using pg_size_pretty you'd be coming off a real datatype.
 
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net