Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent

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 object if anyone added support for that.
> >
> > > Since there's no likelihood that anyone would think autovacuum_naptime
> > > is measured in meters, I think insisting that it must not be written as
> > > "1m" is just pedantry.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure a lot of people would initially be confused why anyone would
> > write time in meters,
>
> Nobody at all is going to be confused on that point because the physical
> quantity of autovacuum_naptime is clearly Time and therefore "m" would
> mean minutes. Time and Distance are fairly distinct and not easily
> confused, except by those with a grounding in Riemannian manifolds.
>
> All parameters for which we can input a time unit are clearly named as
> such and there would be no confusion anywhere.
>
> You are absolutely 100% right about your units and you've clearly done
> your homework, but the standard PostgreSQL should apply here is
> Usability, not the absolute letter of the law as laid down in a dusty
> old document. There is nothing to be gained by adherence to ISO 31 or
> ISO 8601, but certainly something to be lost.
>
> Please lets be real about this and allow the abbreviations suggested.
>
> 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. I don't see the point in following a standard few people know
about.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +