On 2014-08-26 16:16:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> > >> Ah. Okay, but then what's wrong with the original proposal of "use ceil() > >> instead of floor()"? Basically I think the idea of treating fractions > >> less than one differently from fractions greater than one is bogus; nobody > >> will ever find that intuitive. > > > > Or make it an error to specify a value that rounds to 0 but isn't 0. > > I liked David Johnston's even stronger suggestion upthread: make it an > error to specify a value requires rounding of any kind. In other > words, if the minimum granularity is 1 minute, you can specify that as > 60 seconds instead, but if you write 59 seconds, we error out. Maybe > that seems pedantic, but I don't think users will much appreciate the > discovery that 30 seconds means 60 seconds. They'll be happier to be > told that up front than having to work it out afterward.
Is the whole topic actually practically relevant? Afaics there's no guc's with a time unit bigger than GUC_UNIT_S except log_rotation_age where it surely doesn't matter and no space unit bigger than GUC_UNIT_BLOCKS/GUC_UNIT_XBLOCKS. In theory I agree with you/$subject, but I don't really see this worth much effort. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
