| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomonari Katsumata <t(dot)katsumata1122(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <katsumata(dot)tomonari(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |
| Date: | 2014-08-23 18:22:50 |
| Message-ID: | 2567.1408818170@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomonari Katsumata <t(dot)katsumata1122(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This patch rounds up the value when only it's less than required unit.
> ..
> Although my original complaint is fixed, I'm worried about this change will
> make users confusing.
Indeed. I have not understood why you are insisting on "round up"
semantics. Wouldn't it make more sense for the behavior to be "round to
nearest"? That would get rid of any worries about treating zero specially.
> Is it better to raise a message(ex. INFO) when a value less than required
> unit is set?
No. Non-error messages are probably completely useless in this area:
users will typically never see such messages for settings made in
postgresql.conf, because it will not occur to them to look in the
postmaster log. So the behavior needs to be self-explanatory without
any messages; and that means it had better not be very complicated.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G Johnston | 2014-08-23 20:01:22 | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-08-23 15:11:54 | Re: Parallel Sequence Scan doubts |