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?
I think this should be left alone -- it looks more like pointless
tinkering than something useful.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
