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 the point in following a standard few people know
about.

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, you improved that very much with this change. But do you at the same time want to cripple the usefulness again by insisting on a certain _syntax_, while the _semantics_ are completely clear to (guessing) 99% of the people who will changes these settings?

To put it different, there are reasons we try to comply with the SQL standard, not just because we feel like it. Anyone, look at the many archive posts from Tom Lane and others, explaining why we strictly stick to the SQL standard in some cases but allow to extend standard in others.
I just see no compelling reason to comply with a certain standard here.

Best Regards
Michael Paesold


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
      choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
      match

Reply via email to