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
quite arrogant.
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 postgresql.conf.
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 that
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.
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.
--
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
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,
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,
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 institute a policy at
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
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
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 it?
If
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)---
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 that
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 or
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 writing it?
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
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 context
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
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 if they
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
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.
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
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 to
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
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
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 Herrera
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
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 meter and
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 going
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 fine.
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 expand on
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
existing setup is
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 that is
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
should accept
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 added
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.
I
would not
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 for
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 not
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 randomly
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 the
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:
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 different
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 that.
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 of
45 matches
Mail list logo
