On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:45:44PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:30:29PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> > and the units were copied when pg_size_pretty() was implemented. These
> >> > units are based on the International System of Units (SI)/metric.
> >> > However, the SI system is power-of-10-based, and we just re-purposed
> >> > them to be 1024 or 2^10-based.
> >> >
> >> > However, that is not the end of the story.
> >>
> >> Sure it is. The behavior of the code matches the documentation. The
> >> documentation describes one of several reasonable behaviors. Full
> >> stop.
> >>
> >> > I am thinking Postgres 10 would be a good time to switch to KB as a
> >> > 1024-based prefix. Unfortunately, there is no similar fix for MB, GB,
> >> > etc. 'm' is 'milli' so there we never used mB, so in JEDEC and Metric,
> >> > MB is ambiguous as 1000-based or 1024-based.
> >>
> >> I think this would be a backward compatibility break that would
> >> probably cause confusion for years. I think we can add new functions
> >> that behave differently, but I oppose revising the behavior of the
> >> existing functions ... and I *definitely* oppose adding new
> >> behavior-changing GUCs. The result of that will surely be chaos.
> >
> > Can you read up through August 1 and then reply?
>
> I have already read the entire thread, and replied only after reading
> all messages.
Well, what are you replying to then? There is no GUC used, and
everything is backward compatible. Your hyperbole about a new user
being confused is also not helpful. What is this "chaos" you are
talking about?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
