Am Freitag, 22. Juni 2007 15:34 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> Consider even if we are clear that "min" is "minutes", it could be
> chronological minutes or radial degree minutes, so yea, the context has
> to be considered.
The correct symbol for an arc minute is ´, so there is no context dependency.
-
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_rotati
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 15:12 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
> > You don't seem to have any understanding that the units should be
> > interpreted in context.
>
> You are right. I definitely have an understanding that units must be
> interpretable without context. And th
Michael Paesold wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > Considering Postgres will never user either "meter" or "mile"
> > in settings, I don't consider your argument valid.
> >
> > I don't see the value of having units globally unique (literally).
> > It's enough if they unique in the context of postgresq
Michael Paesold wrote:
> > Btw.: I'm currently at DebConf in Edinburgh. On Scottish motorway
> > signage, "5m" means "five miles". Even the Americans do that better. So,
> > no, you can't have "m" for "minutes". ;)
>
> Even with the ;) here and the context, the last sentence sounds to me
> q
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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> where the HINT gets appended if there's something after the integer but
> it doesn't look like any of the allowed units. Objections?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The very definition of "news
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nevertheless, I think that Tom's original suggestion was at least a
> HINT, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
That's the only idea in the whole thread that hasn't been objected to,
so let's just do that and have done with it. (Even if we were
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
> lo
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 15:12 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
> You don't seem to have any understanding that the units should be
> interpreted in context.
You are right. I definitely have an understanding that units must be
interpretable without context. And that clearly works for the most part.
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 00:10 schrieb Gregory Stark:
> Afaict nobody has expressed a single downside to accepting other
> abbreviations.
The two downsides I can see are that it would confuse users (even if it
apparently wouldn't confuse *you*), and that there is a chance that the
configurat
Marko Kreen wrote:
On 6/21/07, Michael Paesold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marko Kreen wrote:
> Considering Postgres will never user either "meter" or "mile"
> in settings, I don't consider your argument valid.
>
> I don't see the value of having units globally unique (literally).
> It's enough i
On 6/21/07, Michael Paesold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marko Kreen wrote:
> Considering Postgres will never user either "meter" or "mile"
> in settings, I don't consider your argument valid.
>
> I don't see the value of having units globally unique (literally).
> It's enough if they unique in the
Marko Kreen wrote:
Considering Postgres will never user either "meter" or "mile"
in settings, I don't consider your argument valid.
I don't see the value of having units globally unique (literally).
It's enough if they unique in the context of postgresql.conf.
Thus +1 of having additional short
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 00:38 schrieb Gregory Stark:
I think people are worried that an 'm' in one column might mean something
different than an 'm' in another column, and perhaps that is confusing.
To whom? the person writing it?
If everyone around here had gotte
On 6/21/07, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 00:38 schrieb Gregory Stark:
> > I think people are worried that an 'm' in one column might mean something
> > different than an 'm' in another column, and perhaps that is confusing.
>
> To whom? the person writi
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
If everyone around here had gotten their way we'd already be in a situation
were you could write
log_rotation_age = 5m
log_rotation_size = 5m
And someone trained in the metric system would think, "What, five meters?".
So it rotates when age and size are the same o
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Btw.: I'm currently at DebConf in Edinburgh. On Scottish motorway signage,
"5m" means "five miles". Even the Americans do that better.
Yeah, but you know *exactly* what it means :-p
Well the good news is
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Btw.: I'm currently at DebConf in Edinburgh. On Scottish motorway signage,
>> "5m" means "five miles". Even the Americans do that better.
>
> Yeah, but you know *exactly* what it means :-p
Well the good news is that as long
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Btw.: I'm currently at DebConf in Edinburgh. On Scottish motorway
signage, "5m" means "five miles". Even the Americans do that better.
Yeah, but you know *exactly* what it means :-p
Regards, Dave
---(end of broadcast)
"Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 00:38 schrieb Gregory Stark:
>> > I think people are worried that an 'm' in one column might mean something
>> > different than an 'm' in another column, and perhaps that is confusing.
>>
>> To whom? the person writing i
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 00:38 schrieb Gregory Stark:
I think people are worried that an 'm' in one column might mean something
different than an 'm' in another column, and perhaps that is confusing.
To whom? the person writing it?
If everyone aroun
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2007 00:38 schrieb Gregory Stark:
> > I think people are worried that an 'm' in one column might mean something
> > different than an 'm' in another column, and perhaps that is confusing.
>
> To whom? the person writing it?
If everyone around here had gotten their way we'd
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My 2c on this:
>
> The way I was taught in school is that "min" is for minute and "mon" is for
> month. Specifically, not "m".
Sure, but nobody's saying you shouldn't be able to use "min". If you think
using "m" is wrong then by all means institu
Dave Page wrote:
Michael Paesold wrote:
It's not about a certain standard. There are so many different ways in
the world to write time units, so in a certain context a standard is
really useful to constrain the format/syntax, but...
This all was about usability of a configuration file, wasn't
Michael Paesold wrote:
It's not about a certain standard. There are so many different ways in
the world to write time units, so in a certain context a standard is
really useful to constrain the format/syntax, but...
This all was about usability of a configuration file, wasn't it? Now,
Peter,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Please lets be real about this and allow the abbreviations suggested.
Agreed.
Your efforts to introduce units is excellent and much appreciated by
all; please don't make them harder to use than the plain numbers were.
Agreed.
Agreed. I don't see t
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 5:21 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>
>> Could you expand on your logic here? And why you disagree with my argument
>> that which abbreviations are correct is irrelevant in deciding whether we
>> sh
"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose the idea is that we don't want to be sloppy about accepting
> just anything in postgresql.conf.
becuase?
> I think people are worried that an 'm' in one column might mean something
> different than an 'm' in another column, and perhaps th
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If SQL was not a popular standard, we would drop it. You and Alvaro are
> > saying that 'm' for meter and 'min' for minute is commonly recognized
> > outside the USA/UK, so that is good enough for me to say that the
> > exis
"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If SQL was not a popular standard, we would drop it. You and Alvaro are
> saying that 'm' for meter and 'min' for minute is commonly recognized
> outside the USA/UK, so that is good enough for me to say that the
> existing setup is fine.
Could you ex
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If SQL was not a popular standard, we would drop it. You and Alvaro are
>> saying that 'm' for meter and 'min' for minute is commonly recognized
>> outside the USA/UK, so that is good enough for me to say that the
>> existing setup is
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If SQL was not a popular standard, we would drop it. You and Alvaro are
> saying that 'm' for meter and 'min' for minute is commonly recognized
> outside the USA/UK, so that is good enough for me to say that the
> existing setup is fine.
If we're not go
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2007 05:54 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> > Agreed. ?I don't see the point in following a standard few people know
> > about.
>
> Yes, let's drop SQL as well.
If SQL was not a popular standard, we would drop it. You and Alvaro are
saying that 'm' for met
Am Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2007 05:54 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> Agreed. I don't see the point in following a standard few people know
> about.
Yes, let's drop SQL as well.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)--
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Agreed. I don't see the point in following a standard few people know
> about.
Few people in the US and UK you mean, right? Everybody else stopped
measuring in king's feet and thumbs a long time ago.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPro
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 20:02 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Am Montag, 18. Juni 2007 19:03 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > > In time-related contexts (eg ISO 8601) I'd expect just "h" "m" and "s".
> >
> > ISO 8601 appears to use a slightly different syntax for writing timespans.
>
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 20:02 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Montag, 18. Juni 2007 19:03 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > In time-related contexts (eg ISO 8601) I'd expect just "h" "m" and "s".
>
> ISO 8601 appears to use a slightly different syntax for writing timespans. I
> would not object if anyone
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's case-sensitive. We had that argument already, but I still think
> this decision was wrong.
I thought the consensus was that it should change.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---(end
Am Montag, 18. Juni 2007 19:03 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Standard according to whom?
ISO 31 a.k.a. SI
> In time-related contexts (eg ISO 8601) I'd expect just "h" "m" and "s".
ISO 8601 appears to use a slightly different syntax for writing timespans. I
would not object if anyone added support for th
"Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pretty sure a lot of people would initially be confused why anyone would
> write time in meters, let alone those that might associate it with memory
> units. In my subjective view (and I acknowledge that we have all been
> educated in differ
Am Montag, 18. Juni 2007 18:16 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> - We do allow preffixes in certain cases.
It would certainly be fun to have a general units system, which you could use
for configuration and data in general. But that would definitely require
that we stay strict on what we allow, or you
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Montag, 18. Juni 2007 16:16 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> It seems that time-based GUC variables can be spelled like
>> 1h but not 1hr
>> 1minbut not 1m
>> 1s but not 1sec
> The left columns are
Am Montag, 18. Juni 2007 16:16 schrieb Tom Lane:
> It seems that time-based GUC variables can be spelled like
> 1h but not 1hr
> 1minbut not 1m
> 1s but not 1sec
The left columns are the standard units. The right columns are just rando
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - I was bitten by this too, not long ago, and took me a while to
> understand why. Should we at least log a HINT or something?
Yeah, a HINT listing the allowed spellings of the unit would go a long
way here.
> However, preffixing with M or K does
Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems that time-based GUC variables can be spelled like
> 1h but not 1hr
> 1minbut not 1m
> 1s but not 1sec
> This is inconsistent and confusing. I don't object to the ones on the
> left as being the standard spellings fo
It seems that time-based GUC variables can be spelled like
1h but not 1hr
1minbut not 1m
1s but not 1sec
This is inconsistent and confusing. I don't object to the ones on the
left as being the standard spellings for printout, but if we'
47 matches
Mail list logo