From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "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: | 2007-06-18 18:32:07 |
Message-ID: | 871wg9t8pk.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I'm pretty sure a lot of people would initially be confused why anyone would
> write time in meters, let alone those that might associate it with memory
> units. In my subjective view (and I acknowledge that we have all been
> educated in different ways), writing "1m" for a time quantity is meaningless
> and an error.
That's an argument for why Postgres maybe shouldn't print times with "m" for
minutes -- though I for one would prefer it. Or why it might not be a
particularly good idea for a sysadmin to use "m" given the choice.
But to argue that Postgres should refuse "m" when presented with it you would
have to say there's a substantial chance that the user didn't mean minutes and
that there was a risk Postgres would do something bad that outweighs giving
users who do want minutes getting what they want.
Frankly, I think I see "m" as an abbreviation for minutes *more* often than
"min" anyways. I see times written as 2h30m quite frequently and then there's
precedent like this:
$ time echo
real 0m0.000s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-06-18 18:45:38 | Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3 |
Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-06-18 18:15:26 | Re: EXPLAIN omits schema? |