Feedback-ID: i131946ab:Fastmail
Message-ID: <36470e35-6e8d-d67c-aaa5-9fc93c5ff5c2@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 21:22:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: Add support for unit "B" to pg_size_pretty()
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
References: <0106914a-9eb5-22be-40d8-652cc88c827d@enterprisedb.com>
 <20230220143452.GM1653@telsasoft.com>
 <e465dc9e-2d88-6ff7-9fa6-d41ab78dd56e@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAApHDvrn9aznj=h1srcjyPpQVBA_B+d7izYvtUa-5ni+GZ7z0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <c5fa9c81-f53d-8fd9-dfba-bc8c7091d5db@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAApHDvpzxuo5F8-zbDoK7ZFmVjMbvVK3XQjNcZZuGcMhBc0V5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4b4613ec-d2c2-a615-9e3f-9f36cf5897ed@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAApHDvrCwMgSD_93LZr4CLMas8Hc61fXAQ-Cd4=+yoRfHnYbJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvrCwMgSD_93LZr4CLMas8Hc61fXAQ-Cd4=+yoRfHnYbJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/36470e35-6e8d-d67c-aaa5-9fc93c5ff5c2%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 06.03.23 09:27, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 21:13, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 02.03.23 20:58, David Rowley wrote:
>>> I think I'd prefer to see the size_bytes_unit_alias struct have an
>>> index into size_pretty_units[] array. i.e:
>>
>> Ok, done that way.  (I had thought about that, but I was worried that
>> that would be too error-prone to maintain.  But I suppose the tables
>> don't change that often, and test cases would easily catch mistakes.)
> 
> Patch looks pretty good. I just see a small spelling mistake in:
> 
> +/* Additional unit aliases acceted by pg_size_bytes */
> 
>> I also updated the documentation a bit more.
> 
> I see I must have forgotten to add PB to the docs when pg_size_pretty
> had that unit added.  I guess you added the "etc" to fix that?  I'm
> wondering if that's the right choice. You modified the comment above
> size_pretty_units[] to remind us to update the docs when adding units,
> but the docs now say "etc", so do we need to?  I'd likely have gone
> with just adding "PB" to the docs, that way it's pretty clear that new
> units need to be mentioned in the docs.

Ok, I have fixed the original documentation to that effect and 
backpatched it.

The remaining patch has been updated accordingly and committed also.