On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:31:26PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > That's why I was asking you to comment on the final patch, which I am > > planning to apply to PG 10 soon. > > Oh, OK. I didn't understand that that was what you are asking. I > don't find either of your proposed final patches to be an improvement > over the status quo. I think the selection of kB rather than KB was a > deliberate decision by Peter Eisentraut, and I don't think changing > our practice now buys us anything meaningful. Your first patch > introduces an odd wart into the GUC mechanism, with a strange wording > for the message, to fix something that's not really broken in the > first place. Your second one alters kB to KB in zillions of places > all over the code base, and I am quite sure that there is no consensus > to do anything of that sort.
Well, the patch was updated several times, and the final version was not objected to until you objected. Does anyone else want to weigh in? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
