Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmobu7N81ViR-XwOdL8C=9njNacYwADPp_KPR6DmqDj7u-g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:30:29PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> > and the units were copied when pg_size_pretty() was implemented. These >> > units are based on the International System of Units (SI)/metric. >> > However, the SI system is power-of-10-based, and we just re-purposed >> > them to be 1024 or 2^10-based. >> > >> > However, that is not the end of the story. >> >> Sure it is. The behavior of the code matches the documentation. The >> documentation describes one of several reasonable behaviors. Full >> stop. >> >> > I am thinking Postgres 10 would be a good time to switch to KB as a >> > 1024-based prefix. Unfortunately, there is no similar fix for MB, GB, >> > etc. 'm' is 'milli' so there we never used mB, so in JEDEC and Metric, >> > MB is ambiguous as 1000-based or 1024-based. >> >> I think this would be a backward compatibility break that would >> probably cause confusion for years. I think we can add new functions >> that behave differently, but I oppose revising the behavior of the >> existing functions ... and I *definitely* oppose adding new >> behavior-changing GUCs. The result of that will surely be chaos. > > Can you read up through August 1 and then reply? I have already read the entire thread, and replied only after reading all messages. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: