Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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: 2007-06-21 13:12:20
Message-ID: 467A7934.3030102@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> If everyone around here had gotten their way we'd already be in a situation
> were you could write
>
> log_rotation_age = 5m
> log_rotation_size = 5m
>
> And someone trained in the metric system would think, "What, five meters?".
> So it rotates when age and size are the same or what? And the ultimate
> consequence of that thinking is that the PostgreSQL developers are uneducated
> dummies and clearly PostgreSQL cannot be a quality product if they can't even
> get that right.
>
>
>

You don't seem to have any understanding that the units should be
interpreted in context. Nobody in their right mind (or perhaps only an
undeducated dummy) will think that 5m might mean five meters for
something called log_rotation_age. You might argue that it is ambiguous
between minutes and months - and for that reason at least I don't think
we should allow "m" as a unit of time. But that's a different argument.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Kreen 2007-06-21 13:22:29 Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Previous Message Dave Page 2007-06-21 13:11:14 Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent