Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
От | Michael Paesold |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 467A7C23.3040501@gmx.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 00:38 schrieb Gregory Stark: >>> I think people are worried that an 'm' in one column might mean something >>> different than an 'm' in another column, and perhaps that is confusing. >> To whom? the person writing it? > > If everyone around here had gotten their way we'd already be in a situation > were you could write > > log_rotation_age = 5m > log_rotation_size = 5m There are valid reasons against 5m as mega-bytes, because here m does not refer to a unit, it refers to a quantifier (if that is a reasonable English word) of a unit. So it should really be 5mb. log_rotation_age = 5m log_rotation_size = 5mb That is quite clear now, except, I admit, that the first could be mistaken to mean 5 months, and perhaps this is a valid reason to not allow 'm' for minutes. Nothing about meters here, though. > Btw.: I'm currently at DebConf in Edinburgh. On Scottish motorway > signage, "5m" means "five miles". Even the Americans do that better. So, > no, you can't have "m" for "minutes". ;) Even with the ;) here and the context, the last sentence sounds to me quite arrogant. Most people here have tried to bring arguments and reasoning... you put it off with irrelevant anecdotes in the wrong context. Best Regards Michael Paesold
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: