Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
While we're on the subject, the units used by pg_size_pretty() are
incorrect, at least according to the IEC: for example, "MB" is
strictly-speaking one million bytes, not 1024^2 bytes. 1024^2 b
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While we're on the subject, the units used by pg_size_pretty() are
> > incorrect, at least according to the IEC: for example, "MB" is
> > strictly-speaking one million bytes, not 1024^2 bytes. 1024^2 bytes is 1
>
Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(2) pg_cancel_backend(), pg_reload_conf(), and pg_rotate_logfile() all
return an int indicating success (1) or failure (0). Why shouldn't these
functions return a boolean?
I would have used boolean as return code for success and failure
Tom Lane wrote:
I agree with both of those criticisms: total is more in line with our
nomenclature than complete, and the other functions should return void
and ereport when they are unhappy. (Saying "I failed" and not having
any mechanism to report why sucks.)
From reading the code, it sugges
Tom Lane wrote:
[ itch... ] The IEC may think they get to define what's correct, but
I don't think that squares with common usage. The only people who
think MB is measured in decimal are disk-manufacturer marketroids.
Well, just them and the IEEE :)
While common usage has been to use kB to me
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While we're on the subject, the units used by pg_size_pretty() are
> incorrect, at least according to the IEC: for example, "MB" is
> strictly-speaking one million bytes, not 1024^2 bytes. 1024^2 bytes is 1
> MiB (similarly for KiB, GiB, and TiB). I'll t
Tom Lane wrote:
If we weren't already forcing an initdb for beta2, I'd say it's a bit
late to be complaining ... but we can fix them "for free" right now,
so why not?
Ok, I'll take a look.
While we're on the subject, the units used by pg_size_pretty() are
incorrect, at least according to the
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Two minor gripes about these new functions:
> (1) I think pg_total_relation_size() is a bit more concise and clear
> than pg_complete_relation_size().
> (2) pg_cancel_backend(), pg_reload_conf(), and pg_rotate_logfile() all
> return an int indicating suc
