On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:35:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-08-23 14:33:15 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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?
>
> To me the change doesn't seem beneficial. Noise aside, the added
> whitespace seems even seems detrimental to me. But I also don't really
> care much.
Well, right now we are inconsistent, so we should decide on the spacing
and make it consistent. I think we are consistent on using 'k' instead
of 'K'. There were at least eight people on this thread and when no one
objected to my final patch, I thought people wanted it.
-- 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 +
