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 <st...@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
