On Thursday 21 June 2007 08:34, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote:
> > There are valid reasons against 5m as mega-bytes, because here m does
> > not refer to a unit, it refers to a quantifier (if that is a reasonable
> > English word) of a unit. So it should really be 5mb.
> >
> > log_rotation_age = 5m
> > log_rotation_size = 5mb
>
> Except, of course, that "5mb" would be understood by those of us who
> work in metric and use both bits and bytes as 5 millibits. Which
> would be an absurd value, but since Postgres had support for time
> travel once, who knows what other wonders the developers have come up
> with ;-) (I will note, though, that this B vs b problem really gets
> up my nose, especially when I hear people who are ostensibly
> designing networks talking about "gigabyte ethernet" cards. I would
> _like_ such a card, I confess, but to my knowledge the standard
> hasn't gotten that far yet.)
Well 10Gb ethernet d does allow for 1GB/sec so.... ;-)
>
> Nevertheless, I think that Tom's original suggestion was at least a
> HINT, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
> A
