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

Re: GUC with units, details

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GUC with units, details
Date: 2006-07-27 05:03:38
Message-ID: 29818.1153976618@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
> I've seen this mentioned a couple of times. I'm not nearly as  
> familiar with these settings as I should be, but it seems to me that  
> if the memory size *does* need to be a integral multiple of page  
> size, e.g., n * page_size = memory_size,  why isn't that memory  
> configured as the integer n rather than memory_size?

It is.  For instance shared_buffers is configured as the number of
buffers.  What we're talking about here is ways to specify the intended
usage with other units (eg "I want N megabytes of shared buffers") but
that's not going to magically let you allocate half a shared buffer.
Peter's not said exactly how he plans to deal with this, but I suppose
it'll round off one way or the other ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jie ZhangDate: 2006-07-27 05:09:34
Subject: Re: On-disk bitmap index patch
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2006-07-27 03:55:38
Subject: Re: On-disk bitmap index patch

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