5 Commits (0a80e88d902d3dfdeed03ede1880b8994a8d892b)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
David Rowley	0a80e88d90	Fix incorrect return value for pg_size_pretty(bigint) ... pg_size_pretty(bigint) would return the value in bytes rather than PB for the smallest-most bigint value. This happened due to an incorrect assumption that the absolute value of -9223372036854775808 could be stored inside a signed 64-bit type. Here we fix that by instead storing that value in an unsigned 64-bit type. This bug does exist in versions prior to 15 but the code there is sufficiently different and the bug seems sufficiently non-critical that it does not seem worth risking backpatching further. Author: Joseph Koshakow <koshy44@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAvxfHdTsMZPWEHUrZ=h3cky9Ccc3Mtx2whUHygY+ABP-mCmUw@mail.gmail.com Backpatch-through: 15	2 years ago
David Rowley	ca2e4472ba	Teach pg_size_pretty and pg_size_bytes about petabytes ... 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	5 years ago
David Rowley	55fe609387	Fix incorrect return value in pg_size_pretty(bigint) ... 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.	5 years ago
Dean Rasheed	53874c5228	Add pg_size_bytes() to parse human-readable size strings. ... 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	10 years ago
Robert Haas	8a1fab36ab	pg_size_pretty: Format negative values similar to positive ones. ... Previously, negative values were always displayed in bytes, regardless of how large they were. Adrian Vondendriesch, reviewed by Julien Rouhaud and myself	11 years ago