On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote: > There are valid reasons against 5m as mega-bytes, because here m does > not refer to a unit, it refers to a quantifier (if that is a reasonable > English word) of a unit. So it should really be 5mb. > > log_rotation_age = 5m > log_rotation_size = 5mb
Except, of course, that "5mb" would be understood by those of us who work in metric and use both bits and bytes as 5 millibits. Which would be an absurd value, but since Postgres had support for time travel once, who knows what other wonders the developers have come up with ;-) (I will note, though, that this B vs b problem really gets up my nose, especially when I hear people who are ostensibly designing networks talking about "gigabyte ethernet" cards. I would _like_ such a card, I confess, but to my knowledge the standard hasn't gotten that far yet.) Nevertheless, I think that Tom's original suggestion was at least a HINT, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary and imaginative work need not end up well. --Dennis Ritchie ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org