Re: GUC with units, details

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Jim Nasby wrote:
>> The truth is, virtually no one, even highly technical people, ever
>> picks nits between kB vs KiB vs KB.
> 
> The question isn't so much whether to allow KiB and such -- that would 
> obviously be trivial.  The question is whether we want to have kB mean 
> 1000 bytes instead of 1024 bytes.

Would it satisfy everyone if the documentation states that
specifying a value of "N kB" means that "*at least* N 1000 bytes"
are allocated; and perhaps even documenting that in the current
implementation it happens to be 24 extra bytes.

> In my mind, that goes against current practice.  The only argument 
> raised in favor was that international standards require such use.  I'm 
> as much a fan of measurement standards as anyone, but I'm also a 
> practitioner of current practice.

With the spec reading "at least N KB", even the most pedantic
spec reader can't complain, because it is true.