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

> 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.
It fixes Tom's example and doesn't break anything else I can find, so
+1.
Is any further overloading needed to cover other cases which
previously worked, or does this cover it?
-Kevin