There was talk about adding units all the way up to yottabytes but it
seems quite far-fetched that anyone would need those. Since such large
units are not exactly commonplace, it seems unlikely that having
pg_size_pretty outputting unit any larger than petabytes would actually be
helpful to anyone.
Since petabytes are on the horizon, let's just add those only. Maybe one
day we'll get to add additional units, but it will likely be a while
before we'll need to think beyond petabytes in regards to the size of a
database.
Author: David Christensen
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOxo6XKmHc_WZip-x5QwaOqFEiCq_SVD0B7sbTZQk+qqcn2qaw@mail.gmail.com
Due to how pg_size_pretty(bigint) was implemented, it's possible that when
given a negative number of bytes that the returning value would not match
the equivalent positive return value when given the equivalent positive
number of bytes. This was due to two separate issues.
1. The function used bit shifting to convert the number of bytes into
larger units. The rounding performed by bit shifting is not the same as
dividing. For example -3 >> 1 = -2, but -3 / 2 = -1. These two
operations are only equivalent with positive numbers.
2. The half_rounded() macro rounded towards positive infinity. This meant
that negative numbers rounded towards zero and positive numbers rounded
away from zero.
Here we fix#1 by dividing the values instead of bit shifting. We fix#2
by adjusting the half_rounded macro always to round away from zero.
Additionally, adjust the pg_size_pretty(numeric) function to be more
explicit that it's using division rather than bit shifting. A casual
observer might have believed bit shifting was used due to a static
function being named numeric_shift_right. However, that function was
calculating the divisor from the number of bits and performed division.
Here we make that more clear. This change is just cosmetic and does not
affect the return value of the numeric version of the function.
Here we also add a set of regression tests both versions of
pg_size_pretty() which test the values directly before and after the
function switches to the next unit.
This bug was introduced in 8a1fab36a. Prior to that negative values were
always displayed in bytes.
Author: Dean Rasheed, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXnNW4HsmZnxhfezR5FuiGgp+mkY4AzcL5eRGO4fuadWg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6, where the bug was introduced.
NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION is a purely arbitrary constraint on the precision
and scale you can write in a numeric typmod. It might once have had
something to do with the allowed range of a typmod-less numeric value,
but at least since 9.1 we've allowed, and documented that we allowed,
any value that would physically fit in the numeric storage format;
which is something over 100000 decimal digits, not 1000.
Hence, get rid of numeric_in()'s use of NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION as a limit
on the allowed range of the exponent in scientific-format input. That was
especially silly in view of the fact that you can enter larger numbers as
long as you don't use 'e' to do it. Just constrain the value enough to
avoid localized overflow, and let make_result be the final arbiter of what
is too large. Likewise adjust ecpg's equivalent of this code.
Also get rid of numeric_recv()'s use of NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION to limit the
number of base-NBASE digits it would accept. That created a dump/restore
hazard for binary COPY without doing anything useful; the wire-format
limit on number of digits (65535) is about as tight as we would want.
In HEAD, also get rid of pg_size_bytes()'s unnecessary intimacy with what
the numeric range limit is. That code doesn't exist in the back branches.
Per gripe from Aravind Kumar. Back-patch to all supported branches,
since they all contain the documentation claim about allowed range of
NUMERIC (cf commit cabf5d84b).
Discussion: <2895.1471195721@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This will parse strings in the format produced by pg_size_pretty() and
return sizes in bytes. This allows queries to be written with clauses
like "pg_total_relation_size(oid) > pg_size_bytes('10 GB')".
Author: Pavel Stehule with various improvements by Vitaly Burovoy
Discussion: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRD-tGoDKnxdYgECzA4On01_uRqPrwF-8LdkSE-6bDHp0w@mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Vitaly Burovoy, Oleksandr Shulgin, Kyotaro Horiguchi,
Michael Paquier and Robert Haas
Previously, negative values were always displayed in bytes, regardless
of how large they were.
Adrian Vondendriesch, reviewed by Julien Rouhaud and myself
Peter Eisentraut
David Rowley
Tom Lane
Dean Rasheed
Robert Haas