Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code
Date
Msg-id 4A3BED8B-FE9E-4C16-A6C2-D9664071BD9E@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I don't think worrying about the message we send to users is  
reasonable. We can take responsibilty for the messages we output but  
punishing our users to teach them a lesson is being actively user- 
hostile

greg

On 3 Sep 2008, at 15:52, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 16:50 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> Are you really afraid that someone would want to use mb to mean
>> millibits ?
>> As SQL is generally case insensitive, it is quite surprising to most
>> people that GUC units are not.
>
> We have had this discussion before, I even submitted a patch to make  
> them case insensitive. In retrospect I was wrong to submit that  
> patch. SQL may be case insensitive but units are not. MB != Mb !=  
> mb , I don't think we should encourage in any way for users to do  
> the wrong thing.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Date:
Subject: Testers: 8.4 snapshot RPMs are available
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code