Re: effective_cache_size is a real?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size is a real?
Date: 2006-07-24 21:23:53
Message-ID: 1153776233.2592.446.camel@holly
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 22:55 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed to
> integer)? The initial revision of guc.c already has it that way, so it
> was probably blindly adapted from the previous adhockery that had all
> planner variables be doubles.

Makes no sense to me as a real. It should be an integer, since it is the
effective number of cache pages, not KB, MB or GB.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-07-24 22:22:39 Back online; Trip postponed
Previous Message Joe Conway 2006-07-24 21:22:29 Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: