Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Converting postgresql.conf parameters to kilobytes

From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Converting postgresql.conf parameters to kilobytes
Date: 2004-06-02 14:55:38
Message-ID: 200406022025.38147.shridhar@frodo.hserus.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> writes:
> > Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
> > assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
> > clear from README that it is for validation purposes only..
>
> As it should be.  Assign hooks have no business altering the
> user-supplied value.

OK

> I remain unalterably opposed to the notion of measuring shared_buffers
> in KB, but if you think you can get such a thing in over my objections,

Are you OK with MBs? I am fine with anything.

> the way to do it is to decouple the GUC parameter from NBuffers.  The
> GUC setting is whatever it is; you can reject the value if it's too
> far out of range, but you do not editorialize upon it.  What you do is
> compute the derived value for NBuffers and assign that in the assign
> hook.

That means removing NBuffers from declaration for config structure and 
substituting a dummy variable for it?

If you think this is good and acceptable enough, I will proceed making changes 
that way. Shall I take this as guideline for other parameters as well?

 Shridhar

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-06-02 14:57:05
Subject: Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2004-06-02 14:54:36
Subject: Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group