On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes: > > I think Bruce's summary is a bit revisionist. > > I would say it's a tempest in a teapot. > > What I think we should do is accept "kb" and the rest case-insensitively, > print them all in all-upper-case always, and tell standards pedants > to get lost. The idea of introducing either a GUC or new function names > is just silly; it will cause far more confusion and user code breakage > than will result from just leaving well enough alone. > I wouldn't mind fixing case sensitivity in the process...but I don't think we need to touch the GUC infrastructure at all. For a product that has a reasonably high regard for the SQL standard I'd like to at least keep an open mind about other relevant standards - and if accommodation is as simple as writing a new function I'd see no reason to reject such a patch. pg_size_pretty never did seem like a good name for a function with its behavior...lets be open to accepting an improved version without a pg_ prefix. We could even avoid a whole new function and add an "iB" template pattern to the to_char function - although I'm not sure that wouldn't be more confusing than helpful in practice. David J.