> > Yes, and I can't think of a single reason why we'd let people
> > anything in millibytes, or kilobits.
> How about a configuration option related to connection throughput,
> typically measured in bits?
We'd use "kbit". I don't see us using "kb" in that case (or was it kB
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-01-03 14:12:10|
|Subject: pg_ctl options|
|Previous:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD||Date: 2007-01-03 11:18:42|
|Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint|