On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 05:30, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 13:31, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It feels like if we're going to fix this negative rounding thing then
> > we should maybe do it and backpatch a fix then rebase this work on top
> > of that.
Yes, that was my thinking too.
> Here's a patch which I believe makes pg_size_pretty() and
> pg_size_pretty_numeric() match in regards to negative values.
LGTM, except I think it's worth also making the numeric code not refer
to bit shifting either.
> Maybe this plus your regression test would be ok to back-patch?
+1
Here's an update with matching updates to the numeric code, plus the
regression tests.
Regards,
Dean