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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: GUC with units, details
Date
Msg-id 200607271756.16092.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GUC with units, details  (Jim Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
Responses Re: GUC with units, details  ("Bort, Paul" <pbort@tmwsystems.com>)
Re: GUC with units, details  (Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>)
Re: GUC with units, details  (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>)
Re: GUC with units, details  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jim Nasby wrote:
> The truth is, virtually no one, even highly technical people, ever
> picks nits between kB vs KiB vs KB.

The question isn't so much whether to allow KiB and such -- that would 
obviously be trivial.  The question is whether we want to have kB mean 
1000 bytes instead of 1024 bytes.

In my mind, that goes against current practice.  The only argument 
raised in favor was that international standards require such use.  I'm 
as much a fan of measurement standards as anyone, but I'm also a 
practitioner of current practice.

This consideration would become much more interesting if *any* software 
product actually made use of this newer proposed convention, but so far 
I haven't seen one yet.

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: GUC with units, details