On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > That's why I was asking you to comment on the final patch, which I am > planning to apply to PG 10 soon.
Oh, OK. I didn't understand that that was what you are asking. I don't find either of your proposed final patches to be an improvement over the status quo. I think the selection of kB rather than KB was a deliberate decision by Peter Eisentraut, and I don't think changing our practice now buys us anything meaningful. Your first patch introduces an odd wart into the GUC mechanism, with a strange wording for the message, to fix something that's not really broken in the first place. Your second one alters kB to KB in zillions of places all over the code base, and I am quite sure that there is no consensus to do anything of that sort. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers