[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea
From:       Tom Lane <tgl () sss ! pgh ! pa ! us>
Date:       2014-07-30 21:56:06
Message-ID: 15011.1406757366 () sss ! pgh ! pa ! us
[Download RAW message or body]

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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]