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 | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well. --Dennis Ritchie