On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:31:26PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > That's why I was asking you to comment on the final patch, which I am
> > planning to apply to PG 10 soon.
>
> Oh, OK. I didn't understand that that was what you are asking. I
> don't find either of your proposed final patches to be an improvement
> over the status quo. I think the selection of kB rather than KB was a
> deliberate decision by Peter Eisentraut, and I don't think changing
> our practice now buys us anything meaningful. Your first patch
> introduces an odd wart into the GUC mechanism, with a strange wording
> for the message, to fix something that's not really broken in the
> first place. Your second one alters kB to KB in zillions of places
> all over the code base, and I am quite sure that there is no consensus
> to do anything of that sort.
Well, the patch was updated several times, and the final version was not
objected to until you objected. Does anyone else want to weigh in?
-- 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 +
