On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:35:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-08-23 14:33:15 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > 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? > > To me the change doesn't seem beneficial. Noise aside, the added > whitespace seems even seems detrimental to me. But I also don't really > care much.
Well, right now we are inconsistent, so we should decide on the spacing and make it consistent. I think we are consistent on using 'k' instead of 'K'. There were at least eight people on this thread and when no one objected to my final patch, I thought people wanted it. -- 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
