Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>
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
Date: 2008-09-04 13:19:56
Message-ID: 20080904131956.GA5786@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing escribió:
> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 20:01 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > Yes there is --- it's the SI.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI#SI_writing_style
> >
> > 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.

Actually, this has been a moving target. For a certain length of time,
some standards did accept that k meant 1024 "in computing context"; see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

So we're not _absolutely_ wrong here; at least not until KiB are more
widely accepted and kB more widely refused to mean 1024 bytes. The
relevant standard has been published just this year by ISO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_80000#Binary_prefixes

So this is new territory, whereas case-sensitivity of prefixes and unit
abbreviations has existed for decades.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message M2Y 2008-09-04 13:22:41 Debugging methods
Previous Message Xiao Meng 2008-09-04 13:03:45 Re: [PATCHES] hash index improving v3