Re: effective_cache_size vs units

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Date: 2006-12-19 04:56:22
Message-ID: 1166504182.22487.36.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 23:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > Oh, you mean MB vs Mb. Man, it had to be that simple :)
>
> ISTM we had discussed whether guc.c should accept units strings in
> a case-insensitive manner, and the forces of pedantry won the first
> round. Shall we reopen that argument?

I don't think that anyone is going to think, oh I am using 1000 Mega Bit
of ram. Mb == MB in this case. That being said, it is documented and I
don't know that it makes that much difference as long as the
documentation is clear.

Hmm perhaps perhaps a quick statement to the effect of what is legal in
the postgresql.conf? E.g;

#
# When setting memory parameters you may used a shortened sytanx e.g.,
# 1024MB or 1GB is 1 Gigabyte of ram. Note that MB/GB is capitalized.
#

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-12-19 06:28:03 Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-12-19 04:46:55 Re: effective_cache_size vs units