Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On 7/6/10 8:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: It might be that nobody's using any values other than 0 and -1 ... in which case it wouldn't matter anyway. I agree that the lack of bug reports is notable. But still, don't we try to avoid behavioral changes in stable branches? I think most people are doing what I was doing: looking at the values in the logs, and writing math appropriately. Most of the other log output isn't documented well, and the output values are obviously bytes, so frankly it never occurred to me to check the docs. Agreed that backporting the fix to 8.3 and 8.4 is infeasible. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
2010/7/8 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com: On 7/6/10 8:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: It might be that nobody's using any values other than 0 and -1 ... in which case it wouldn't matter anyway. I agree that the lack of bug reports is notable. But still, don't we try to avoid behavioral changes in stable branches? I think most people are doing what I was doing: looking at the values in the logs, and writing math appropriately. Most of the other log output isn't documented well, and the output values are obviously bytes, so frankly it never occurred to me to check the docs. Samething here Agreed that backporting the fix to 8.3 and 8.4 is infeasible. +1 But I don't understand why not backport a documentation patch. Thing is identified, clearly boring for one just trusting the docs. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0? We've always output bytes. I'd have noticed the discrepancy myself if I'd read the actual docs ;-) KB would be more useful. And I don't think people have enough scripts built on this yet to make this break anything. We should backport to 8.4. log_temp_files was introduced in 8.3, so we'll need to backpatch this to 8.3, not just 8.4. Greg Smith tells me Simon has been busy with other things, so I'm going to pick this up. Barring objections, I'm going to revert Simon's patch and change the behavior instead, per the attached patch. I will also back-patch the fix to 8.4 and 8.3. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company log_temp_files.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: log_temp_files was introduced in 8.3, so we'll need to backpatch this to 8.3, not just 8.4. Greg Smith tells me Simon has been busy with other things, so I'm going to pick this up. Barring objections, I'm going to revert Simon's patch and change the behavior instead, per the attached patch. I will also back-patch the fix to 8.4 and 8.3. I agree with doing this for 9.0, but I'm much less sold that it's a good idea to change the meaning of the parameter in minor releases of 8.4 and 8.3. Aren't you risking breaking installations that work now? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0? We've always output bytes. I'd have noticed the discrepancy myself if I'd read the actual docs ;-) KB would be more useful. And I don't think people have enough scripts built on this yet to make this break anything. We should backport to 8.4. log_temp_files was introduced in 8.3, so we'll need to backpatch this to 8.3, not just 8.4. Greg Smith tells me Simon has been busy with other things, so I'm going to pick this up. Barring objections, I'm going to revert Simon's patch and change the behavior instead, per the attached patch. I will also back-patch the fix to 8.4 and 8.3. I was expecting Josh's suggestion to get argued down...I'm curious why anyone is considering a behavior change in 8.3 or 8.4 over this? It's reasonable to change the behavior in 9.0, and/or to correct the docs for 8.3 or 8.4, but I would think a behavior change in the earlier versions would be out of line with the project's version policies. I know I have scripts that will mysteriously break if this goes into a stable version. I'm used to writing things that have code for detecting major version and acting accordingly, but I'd really prefer this project doesn't ever wander down the path where I need to start writing in code for do this on =8.3.11, this other thing for =8.3.12. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: log_temp_files was introduced in 8.3, so we'll need to backpatch this to 8.3, not just 8.4. Greg Smith tells me Simon has been busy with other things, so I'm going to pick this up. Barring objections, I'm going to revert Simon's patch and change the behavior instead, per the attached patch. I will also back-patch the fix to 8.4 and 8.3. I agree with doing this for 9.0, but I'm much less sold that it's a good idea to change the meaning of the parameter in minor releases of 8.4 and 8.3. Aren't you risking breaking installations that work now? I think my least favorite option is changing the behavior only in HEAD. I think the reasonable options are: 1. Change the behavior in HEAD, 8.4, and 8.3, per previous discussion. If we do this, we should do what I proposed in my previous email. 2. Change the comments and documentation in 8.4 and 8.3 along the lines that Simon already did in HEAD. If we do this, we also need to change the GUC units to something other than GUC_UNIT_KB, as noted upthread. I'm not sure what would be appropriate. The reason I think it's OK to change the behavior in the back-branches is that (a) the only thing it affects is logging, so it shouldn't really break anything, and (b) apparently nobody has noticed that the interpretation of the GUC is off by three orders of magnitude, so either nobody's using it or they're not looking at what's actually happening too carefully. But I'm OK with going the other way and changing the code and docs in the back-branches, too. I just think we should be consistent. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Robert Haas wrote: I think my least favorite option is changing the behavior only in HEAD. I think the reasonable options are: 1. Change the behavior in HEAD, 8.4, and 8.3, per previous discussion. If we do this, we should do what I proposed in my previous email. 2. Change the comments and documentation in 8.4 and 8.3 along the lines that Simon already did in HEAD. If we do this, we also need to change the GUC units to something other than GUC_UNIT_KB, as noted upthread. I'm not sure what would be appropriate. The reason I think it's OK to change the behavior in the back-branches is that (a) the only thing it affects is logging, so it shouldn't really break anything, and (b) apparently nobody has noticed that the interpretation of the GUC is off by three orders of magnitude, so either nobody's using it or they're not looking at what's actually happening too carefully. But I'm OK with going the other way and changing the code and docs in the back-branches, too. I just think we should be consistent. I normally don't backpatch anything unless it is either a possible cause of data loss, or a problem that is reported by multiple people. Anything backpatched risks causing instability, and might discourage people from performing minor upgrades. Minor fixes are rarely worth the risk of causing instability in back-branches. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Robert Haas wrote: I think my least favorite option is changing the behavior only in HEAD. I think the reasonable options are: 1. Change the behavior in HEAD, 8.4, and 8.3, per previous discussion. If we do this, we should do what I proposed in my previous email. 2. Change the comments and documentation in 8.4 and 8.3 along the lines that Simon already did in HEAD. If we do this, we also need to change the GUC units to something other than GUC_UNIT_KB, as noted upthread. I'm not sure what would be appropriate. The reason I think it's OK to change the behavior in the back-branches is that (a) the only thing it affects is logging, so it shouldn't really break anything, and (b) apparently nobody has noticed that the interpretation of the GUC is off by three orders of magnitude, so either nobody's using it or they're not looking at what's actually happening too carefully. But I'm OK with going the other way and changing the code and docs in the back-branches, too. I just think we should be consistent. I normally don't backpatch anything unless it is either a possible cause of data loss, or a problem that is reported by multiple people. Anything backpatched risks causing instability, and might discourage people from performing minor upgrades. Minor fixes are rarely worth the risk of causing instability in back-branches. OK. Well, in that case, I think we should backpatch the changes Simon already made, and also pick a new unit for the GUC. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: The reason I think it's OK to change the behavior in the back-branches is that (a) the only thing it affects is logging, so it shouldn't really break anything, and (b) apparently nobody has noticed that the interpretation of the GUC is off by three orders of magnitude, so either nobody's using it or they're not looking at what's actually happening too carefully. It might be that nobody's using any values other than 0 and -1 ... in which case it wouldn't matter anyway. I agree that the lack of bug reports is notable. But still, don't we try to avoid behavioral changes in stable branches? I'm not dead set against doing what you propose, just think it needs some discussion. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Anything backpatched risks causing instability, and might discourage people from performing minor upgrades. Minor fixes are rarely worth the risk of causing instability in back-branches. OK. Well, in that case, I think we should backpatch the changes Simon already made, and also pick a new unit for the GUC. Changing the unit setting would also be a behavioral change. I think what Bruce is suggesting is that this is simply not worth worrying about in the back branches. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Anything backpatched risks causing instability, and might discourage people from performing minor upgrades. Minor fixes are rarely worth the risk of causing instability in back-branches. OK. Well, in that case, I think we should backpatch the changes Simon already made, and also pick a new unit for the GUC. Changing the unit setting would also be a behavioral change. I think what Bruce is suggesting is that this is simply not worth worrying about in the back branches. It seems pretty strange not to at least document it. And I'm not wild about adding documentation that says Even though this value purports to be in kilobytes, it's really not, but I guess we can. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Changing the unit setting would also be a behavioral change. I think what Bruce is suggesting is that this is simply not worth worrying about in the back branches. It seems pretty strange not to at least document it. And I'm not wild about adding documentation that says Even though this value purports to be in kilobytes, it's really not, but I guess we can. Uh, no, the suggestion is to do *nothing* in the back branches. Yes they're buggy, but without any field complaints, it's hard to argue that anyone much cares. And I agree with Greg Smith that for anyone who does care, a behavioral change in a minor release is much harder to deal with than a change at a major release. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: without any field complaints, I refer you to Simon's original commit message: Bug found during recent performance tuning for PostgreSQL user. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Changing the unit setting would also be a behavioral change. I think what Bruce is suggesting is that this is simply not worth worrying about in the back branches. It seems pretty strange not to at least document it. And I'm not wild about adding documentation that says Even though this value purports to be in kilobytes, it's really not, but I guess we can. Uh, no, the suggestion is to do *nothing* in the back branches. Yes they're buggy, but without any field complaints, it's hard to argue that anyone much cares. And I agree with Greg Smith that for anyone who does care, a behavioral change in a minor release is much harder to deal with than a change at a major release. OK, so I talked to Bruce about this and I guess I've been persuaded that we should just apply the patch I sent upthread to HEAD and leave the back-branches broken, for fear of creating an incompatibility. I'll go do that unless someone wants to argue further... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Robert Haas wrote: OK, so I talked to Bruce about this and I guess I've been persuaded that we should just apply the patch I sent upthread to HEAD and leave the back-branches broken, for fear of creating an incompatibility. The only thing that might be appropriate to backport is the docs fix, change kilobytes to bytes in config.sgml where the parameter is described. The bug complaint here was mad at the documentation not matching the behavior, rather than the behavior itself. I agree with the change to HEAD you've suggested though, that's the right way to do this for future releases. This change is something worth mentioning in the release notes for 9.0 too. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: OK, so I talked to Bruce about this and I guess I've been persuaded that we should just apply the patch I sent upthread to HEAD and leave the back-branches broken, for fear of creating an incompatibility. The only thing that might be appropriate to backport is the docs fix, change kilobytes to bytes in config.sgml where the parameter is described. The bug complaint here was mad at the documentation not matching the behavior, rather than the behavior itself. I agree with the change to HEAD you've suggested though, that's the right way to do this for future releases. This change is something worth mentioning in the release notes for 9.0 too. I talked about that with Bruce. It wouldn't actually be sufficient to just say it's in bytes, because if you do show log_temp_files, it'll tell you that it's in kB, but it's really not. So we'd need to basically explain that it's a bug we're not fixing for fear of breaking existing installations. Bruce felt it wasn't worth putting that amount of work into backbranch docs that nobody's likely to read anyway, but I suppose that view could be overruled if there's a strong consensus. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Robert Haas wrote: Bruce felt it wasn't worth putting that amount of work into backbranch docs that nobody's likely to read anyway, but I suppose that view could be overruled if there's a strong consensus. I was never arguing in favor of touching anything in the back branches; if you recall I didn't even voice an opinion here until I got concerned about too many changes happening in them. I think a proper fix in 9.0 combined with a release notes comment noting the old/new behavior, so it's clear what was broken in the old versions, would be quite enough here. Something like this maybe: Change log_temp_files to be set in and output its value in kilobytes. Older versions had the parameter labeled and documented as being in KB, while it was actually set and outputting to the logs in bytes. Thanks for following this through, I think it's a useful small bit to get sorted out fully. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I was never arguing in favor of touching anything in the back branches; if you recall I didn't even voice an opinion here until I got concerned about too many changes happening in them. I think a proper fix in 9.0 combined with a release notes comment noting the old/new behavior, so it's clear what was broken in the old versions, would be quite enough here. OK, commit done in head, with a note that we're deliberately not touching the back-branches and should release-note the change. Open item removed, also. Thanks for following this through, I think it's a useful small bit to get sorted out fully. yw -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 10:56 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0? We've always output bytes. I'd have noticed the discrepancy myself if I'd read the actual docs ;-) We can still output bytes, no problem. The issue is that the parameter is actually measured in bytes, whereas the docs say kilobytes, so you get much more log output than you were expecting. KB would be more useful. And I don't think people have enough scripts built on this yet to make this break anything. We should backport to 8.4. OK -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On 25/06/10 16:11, Simon Riggs wrote: Log Message: --- Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes. stat(2) field st_size returns bytes not kilobytes. Bug found during recent performance tuning for PostgreSQL user. Modified Files: -- pgsql/doc/src/sgml: config.sgml (r1.282 - r1.283) (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml?r1=1.282r2=1.283) pgsql/src/backend/utils/misc: guc.c (r1.556 - r1.557) (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c?r1=1.556r2=1.557) Hmm, GUC_UNIT_KB doesn't seem appropriate anymore. I'd suggest changing the code to match the documentation instead. Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 17:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 25/06/10 16:11, Simon Riggs wrote: Log Message: --- Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes. stat(2) field st_size returns bytes not kilobytes. Bug found during recent performance tuning for PostgreSQL user. Modified Files: -- pgsql/doc/src/sgml: config.sgml (r1.282 - r1.283) (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml?r1=1.282r2=1.283) pgsql/src/backend/utils/misc: guc.c (r1.556 - r1.557) (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c?r1=1.556r2=1.557) Hmm, GUC_UNIT_KB doesn't seem appropriate anymore. I'd suggest changing the code to match the documentation instead. Well, perhaps it does. Maybe I should fix the report to output KB instead and revert all the comments to kilo Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0? Spose so. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.
Shouldn't this be backpatched, or was this a new bug in 9.0? We've always output bytes. I'd have noticed the discrepancy myself if I'd read the actual docs ;-) KB would be more useful. And I don't think people have enough scripts built on this yet to make this break anything. We should backport to 8.4. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
