Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent

Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at>

From: Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2007-06-21T13:24:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 00:38 schrieb Gregory Stark:
>>> I think people are worried that an 'm' in one column might mean something
>>> different than an 'm' in another column, and perhaps that is confusing.
>> To whom? the person writing it?
> 
> If everyone around here had gotten their way we'd already be in a situation 
> were you could write
> 
> log_rotation_age = 5m
> log_rotation_size = 5m

There are valid reasons against 5m as mega-bytes, because here m does 
not refer to a unit, it refers to a quantifier (if that is a reasonable 
English word) of a unit. So it should really be 5mb.

log_rotation_age = 5m
log_rotation_size = 5mb

That is quite clear now, except, I admit, that the first could be 
mistaken to mean 5 months, and perhaps this is a valid reason to not 
allow 'm' for minutes. Nothing about meters here, though.

> Btw.: I'm currently at DebConf in Edinburgh.  On Scottish motorway 
> signage, "5m" means "five miles".  Even the Americans do that better.  So, 
> no, you can't have "m" for "minutes". ;)

Even with the ;) here and the context, the last sentence sounds to me 
quite arrogant. Most people here have tried to bring arguments and 
reasoning... you put it off with irrelevant anecdotes in the wrong context.

Best Regards
Michael Paesold