Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Berger <Thomas(dot)Berger(at)1und1(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
Date: 2016-09-14 15:54:45
Message-ID: 9719.1473868485@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Interesting. I think that our documentation should only describe the
> way we use unit suffixes in one central place, but other places (like
> pg_size_pretty) could link to that central place.

> I don't believe that there is any general unanimity among users or
> developers about the question of which suffixes devote units
> denominated in units of 2^10 bytes vs. 10^3 bytes. About once a year,
> somebody makes an argument that we're doing it wrong, but the evidence
> that I've seen is very mixed. So when people say that there is only
> one right way to do this and we are not in compliance with that one
> right way, I guess I just don't believe it. Not everybody likes the
> way we do it, but I am fairly sure that if we change it, we'll make
> some currently-unhappy people happy and some currently-happy people
> unhappy. And the people who don't care but wanted to preserve
> backward compatibility will all be in the latter camp.

That's about my position too: I cannot see that changing this is going
to make things better to a degree that would justify breaking backwards
compatibility.

> However, that is not to say that the documentation couldn't be better.

+1; your idea above seems sound.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Flower 2016-09-14 22:03:13 Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-09-14 15:45:59 Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arthur Silva 2016-09-14 15:59:16 Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-09-14 15:45:59 Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()