Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gregory Stark
Subject Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Date
Msg-id 871wg9t8pk.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:

> I'm pretty sure a lot of people would initially be confused why anyone would 
> write time in meters, let alone those that might associate it with memory 
> units.  In my subjective view (and I acknowledge that we have all been 
> educated in different ways), writing "1m" for a time quantity is meaningless 
> and an error.

That's an argument for why Postgres maybe shouldn't print times with "m" for
minutes -- though I for one would prefer it. Or why it might not be a
particularly good idea for a sysadmin to use "m" given the choice.

But to argue that Postgres should refuse "m" when presented with it you would
have to say there's a substantial chance that the user didn't mean minutes and
that there was a risk Postgres would do something bad that outweighs giving
users who do want minutes getting what they want.

Frankly, I think I see "m" as an abbreviation for minutes *more* often than
"min" anyways. I see times written as 2h30m quite frequently and then there's
precedent like this: 

$ time echo

real    0m0.000s
user    0m0.000s
sys    0m0.000s


--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Date:
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN omits schema?
Next
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing NUMERIC size for 8.3