Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Date: 2007-06-21 15:34:42
Message-ID: 20070621153442.GU5500@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote:
> There are valid reasons against 5m as mega-bytes, because here m does
> not refer to a unit, it refers to a quantifier (if that is a reasonable
> English word) of a unit. So it should really be 5mb.
>
> log_rotation_age = 5m
> log_rotation_size = 5mb

Except, of course, that "5mb" would be understood by those of us who
work in metric and use both bits and bytes as 5 millibits. Which
would be an absurd value, but since Postgres had support for time
travel once, who knows what other wonders the developers have come up
with ;-) (I will note, though, that this B vs b problem really gets
up my nose, especially when I hear people who are ostensibly
designing networks talking about "gigabyte ethernet" cards. I would
_like_ such a card, I confess, but to my knowledge the standard
hasn't gotten that far yet.)

Nevertheless, I think that Tom's original suggestion was at least a
HINT, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-21 15:55:56 Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Previous Message Timasmith 2007-06-21 15:08:06 Re: to partition or not to partition that is the question