Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: GUC with units, details

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: 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, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>
Subject: Re: GUC with units, details
Date: 2006-07-26 06:12:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 19:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought it was fairly common to
> > use "k" for 1000, "K" for 1024, etc (mnemonic: upper case for the
> > larger multiplier).
> Well, that only works for K vs. k: the SI prefix for mega is M
> (meaning 10^6), not "m". Similarly for "G".

Indeed.  The k vs K idea is an excuse for not wanting to side with 
either camp, but it does not scale.

> Why it is "impractical" to use the IEC prefixes?

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'?

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.

Peter Eisentraut

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: craigpDate: 2006-07-26 06:44:26
Subject: INSERT ... RETURNING in 8.2
Previous:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2006-07-26 05:05:08
Subject: Re: Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group