Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | aaae773d-0add-186a-a37b-70f103ab153a@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/30/2016 11:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:35:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes: > I agree that a GUC and new functions are overkill --- we should just > decide on the format we want to output and what to support for input. > > As logical as the IEC format appears, I just don't think the Ki/Mi/Gi > prefixes are used widely enough for us to use it --- I think it will > cause too many problem reports: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix > > I have developed two possible patches for PG 10 --- the first one merely > allows "KB" to be used in addition to the existing "kB", and documents > this as an option. > > The second patch does what Tom suggests above by outputting only "KB", > and it supports "kB" for backward compatibility. What it doesn't do is > to allow arbitrary case, which I think would be a step backward. The > second patch actually does match the JEDEC standard, except for allowing > "kB". > > I also just applied a doc patch that increases case and spacing > consistency in the use of kB/MB/GB/TB. > +1 -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: