From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200904072247.n37Mlfh25381@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: log_min_duration_statement units
In-Reply-To: <23945.1239144239@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:47:41 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> >> My English is not as good as yours but here is another try. Personally, I 
> >> prefer the second one but...
> 
> > Great, I used your second version.  I had already done some of the ones
> > you found, but you had many more.  I also used your "0 disables" wording
> > consistently in the file.  Thanks for the help.  Committed.
> 
> You know, it suddenly strikes me that this is going in largely the wrong
> direction.  Wasn't a key part of the reasoning for the GUC units support
> to *eliminate* the need for people to know what the underlying
> variable's unit is?  I certainly think that putting the unit info into
> the text descriptions is a seriously bad idea.  It makes an already
> overly wide view even wider, and the information is 100% redundant with
> the "unit" column of the pg_settings view.

Right, the problem particularly is with the -1/special values that don't
have a real unit.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

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