From: | "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GUC with units, details |
Date: | 2006-07-26 16:17:00 |
Message-ID: | DB106B1B5B8F734B8FF3E155A3A556C202D4FD7F@clemail1.tmwsystems.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'd imagine that one of the first things someone will want to try is
> something like SET work_mem TO '10MB', which will fail or misbehave
> because 10000000 bytes do not divide up into chunks of 1024
> bytes. Who
> wants to explain to users that they have to write '10MiB'?
How about this:
INFO: Your setting was converted to IEC standard binary units. Use KiB,
MiB, and GiB to avoid this warning.
>
> Since about forever, PostgreSQL has used kB, MB, GB to
> describe memory
> allocation. If we want to change that, we ought to do it across the
> board. But that's a big board.
The standard hasn't been around forever; some incarnation of PostgreSQL
certainly pre-dates it. But it was created to reduce confusion between
binary and decimal units.
The Linux kernel changed to the standard years ago. And that's just a
few more lines of code than PostgreSQL. ( http://kerneltrap.org/node/340
and others )
Regards,
Paul Bort
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-07-26 16:36:51 | Re: GUC with units, details |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-26 16:09:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree |