| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Alex <alex(at)meerkatsoft(dot)com>, Lada 'Ray' Lostak <ray(at)unreal64(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: export FUNC_MAX_ARGS as a read-only GUC variable |
| Date: | 2003-12-02 00:45:40 |
| Message-ID: | 3FCBE0B4.8060507@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>Joe Conway writes:
>>>Any more thoughts on block_size (or page_size)?
>>
>>It's always been some variant spelling of "block size", and I see no
>>reason to change the terminology.
>
> Yes, that is from a coder's perspective, but from the user/admin
> perspective, it seems more like page, and in fact we probably would call
> it page if we were starting from scratch.
Hmm, I don't feel strongly either way on this, but I guess I lean toward
block_size myself. Any other opinions out there?
block_size or page_size or something else?
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-12-02 01:16:26 | Re: Triggers, Stored Procedures, PHP. was: Re: PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Rick Gigger | 2003-12-02 00:45:02 | Re: PostgreSQL Advocacy, Thoughts and Comments |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-12-02 06:30:11 | Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-02 00:32:26 | Re: 7.4 shared memory error on 64-bit SPARC/Solaris 5.8 |