Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Date: 2007-06-22 13:34:09
Message-ID: 200706221334.l5MDY9503393@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 15:12 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
> > You don't seem to have any understanding that the units should be
> > interpreted in context.
>
> You are right. I definitely have an understanding that units must be
> interpretable without context. And that clearly works for the most part.

Consider even if we are clear that "min" is "minutes", it could be
chronological minutes or radial degree minutes, so yea, the context has
to be considered.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-06-22 13:36:23 Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-06-22 13:29:43 Re: Worries about delayed-commit semantics