Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit.

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> If we want the narrowest possible fix for this, I think it's "complain
>> if a non-zero value would round to zero".  That fixes the original
>> complaint and changes absolutely nothing else.  But I think that's
>> kind of wussy.  Yeah, rounding 29 seconds down to a special magic
>> value of 0 is more surprising than rounding 30 seconds up to a minute,
>> but the latter is still surprising.  We're generally not averse to
>> tighter validation, so why here?
>
> So in other words, if I set "shared_buffers = 100KB", you are proposing
> that that be rejected because it's not an exact multiple of 8KB?

Absolutely.  And if anyone is inconvenienced by that, then they should
upgrade to a 386.  Seriously, who is going to set a value of
shared_buffers that is not measured in MB?  And if they do, why
shouldn't we complain if we can't honor the value exactly?  If they
really put in a value that small, it's not stupid to think that the
difference between 96kB and 104kB is significant.  Honestly, the most
likely explanation for that value is that it's a developer doing
testing.