[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
From:       "Joshua D. Drake" <jd () commandprompt ! com>
Date:       2016-07-31 5:17:17
Message-ID: aaae773d-0add-186a-a37b-70f103ab153a () commandprompt ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]