On Thursday 21 June 2007 08:34, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > 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.)
Well 10Gb ethernet d does allow for 1GB/sec so.... ;-) > > Nevertheless, I think that Tom's original suggestion was at least a > HINT, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. > > A ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings