|From:||Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 20:01 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hannu Krosing escribió:
> > I mean, there is no known written standard, which says that Mb is
> > megabit, not megabyte or that you can (or can't) write kilo as K, but
> > some people just believe that kB is "the Way" and allowing people to
> > write kilobytes as KB or kb is evil and should be punished.
> Yes there is --- it's the SI.
> I don't know about it being "evil" and punishment, but it's wrong.
SI defines decimal-based prefixes, where k = kilo = 1000, so our current
conf use is also wrong.
1024 bytes (2^10): This unit is used when expressing quantities which
are based on powers of two, such as memory chip capacities. Most
software also expresses storage capacity in units of 1024 bytes.
Although the use of kilobyte for this unit is common, this usage has
been expressly forbidden by the SI standard and other standards
organisations. To indicate a quantity of 1024 bytes, the term kibibyte
(KiB) has been recommended instead.
And no, I am not proposing switching conf units to KiB, nor am I
proposing to use MB to mean 1 000 000. I'm quite happy with us being
"wrong" in 1000 v. 1024 area.
|Next Message||Dimitri Fontaine||2008-09-04 07:57:06||Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2008-09-04 05:35:16||Re: hash index improving v3|