Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160823183734.GA178565@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: