Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9719.1473868485@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > Interesting. I think that our documentation should only describe the > way we use unit suffixes in one central place, but other places (like > pg_size_pretty) could link to that central place. > I don't believe that there is any general unanimity among users or > developers about the question of which suffixes devote units > denominated in units of 2^10 bytes vs. 10^3 bytes. About once a year, > somebody makes an argument that we're doing it wrong, but the evidence > that I've seen is very mixed. So when people say that there is only > one right way to do this and we are not in compliance with that one > right way, I guess I just don't believe it. Not everybody likes the > way we do it, but I am fairly sure that if we change it, we'll make > some currently-unhappy people happy and some currently-happy people > unhappy. And the people who don't care but wanted to preserve > backward compatibility will all be in the latter camp. That's about my position too: I cannot see that changing this is going to make things better to a degree that would justify breaking backwards compatibility. > However, that is not to say that the documentation couldn't be better. +1; your idea above seems sound. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: