Re: GUC with units, details - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: GUC with units, details
Date
Msg-id 200607260812.06163.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GUC with units, details  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Responses Re: GUC with units, details  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: GUC with units, details  ("Bort, Paul" <pbort@tmwsystems.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 19:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought it was fairly common to
> > use "k" for 1000, "K" for 1024, etc (mnemonic: upper case for the
> > larger multiplier).
>
> Well, that only works for K vs. k: the SI prefix for mega is M
> (meaning 10^6), not "m". Similarly for "G".

Indeed.  The k vs K idea is an excuse for not wanting to side with 
either camp, but it does not scale.

> Why it is "impractical" to use the IEC prefixes?

I'd imagine that one of the first things someone will want to try is 
something like SET work_mem TO '10MB', which will fail or misbehave 
because 10000000 bytes do not divide up into chunks of 1024 bytes.  Who 
wants to explain to users that they have to write '10MiB'?

Since about forever, PostgreSQL has used kB, MB, GB to describe memory 
allocation.  If we want to change that, we ought to do it across the 
board.  But that's a big board.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: ITAGAKI Takahiro
Date:
Subject: Re: Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree
Next
From: craigp
Date:
Subject: INSERT ... RETURNING in 8.2