Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Date: 2007-06-20 22:45:51
Message-ID: 467967CF.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 5:21 PM, in message
<200706202221(dot)l5KMLf805760(at)momjian(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>
>> Could you expand on your logic here? And why you disagree with my argument
>> that which abbreviations are correct is irrelevant in deciding whether we
>> should accept other abbreviations.
>
> I suppose the idea is that we don't want to be sloppy about accepting
> just anything in postgresql.conf. I think people are worried that an
> 'm' in one column might mean something different than an 'm' in another
> column, and perhaps that is confusing.

If we want precision and standards, I would personally find ISO 8601 4.4.3.2 less confusing than the current implementation. (You could say 'PT2M30S' or 'PT2,5M' or 'PT2.5M' to specify a 2 minute and 30 second interval.) That said, I'd be OK with a HINT that listed valid syntax. I've wasted enough time looking up the supported abbreviations to last me a while.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2007-06-21 03:10:59 month abreviation
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-06-20 22:38:55 Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent