You just proved the case for why the units shouldn't be case sensitive:

On Dec 30, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Andrew Hammond wrote:
> I agree. But perhaps the solution instead of failing is to throw a
> warning to the effect of "Not to be pedantic, but you said mb and
> millibits as a unit doesn't make sense in this context. Assuming you
> meant MB (MegaBits)." and then start up.

Do we really want people specifying effective_cache_size in *bits*,  
mega or not? I think no.

To reply to Peter's comment, yes, bits would be useful if we ever  
actually have any settings relating to network bandwidth. But that's  
a really big IF. IF we do eventually decide to add such a setting, I  
think it would make the most sense to spell out 'bits' in the unit.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

• Re: effective_cache_size vs units at 2006-12-30 23:36:24 from Andrew Hammond

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2007-01-03 15:35:44
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files
Previous:	From: Jim Nasby	Date: 2007-01-03 15:26:34
	Subject: Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay