| From: | Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet(at)amorsen(dot)dk> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
| Date: | 2007-01-01 19:10:46 |
| Message-ID: | m33b6ubm15.fsf@ursa.amorsen.dk |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
TL> Personally I don't find the argument about "someday we might want
TL> to support measurements in millibits" to be convincing at all, and
TL> certainly it seems weaker than the argument that "units should be
TL> case insensitive because everything else in this file is". The SQL
TL> spec has to be considered a more relevant controlling precedent
TL> for us than the SI units spec, and there are no case-sensitive
TL> keywords in SQL.
Units simply are not case sensitive. They are just a more or less
random collection of preexisting symbols, because that was easier than
drawing up entirely new ones. Not all are English letters, for one µ
is not. If you upper case a text with units in, the units do not
change with the rest of the text.
/Benny
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-01 19:23:10 | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-01 19:06:35 | Re: A possible TODO item |