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

Re: effective_cache_size vs units

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet(at)amorsen(dot)dk>
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Date: 2007-01-02 15:19:38
Message-ID: 3591.1167751178@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2006 13:25 schrieb Jim C. Nasby:
>> Yes, and I can't think of a single reason why we'd let people specify
>> anything in millibytes, or kilobits.

> How about a configuration option related to connection throughput, which is 
> typically measured in bits?

But at least as often in bytes.  What's more, if the system really were
to accept both units, you could reasonably expect that people would get
it wrong at least half the time ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: news.postgresql.orgDate: 2007-01-02 16:34:05
Subject: Re: TODO: Add a GUC to control whether BEGIN inside
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-01-02 15:18:30
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] xlog directory at initdb time

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