Re: Refactoring GUC unit conversions

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Refactoring GUC unit conversions
Date: 2015-02-13 20:36:17
Message-ID: 54DE6041.9030603@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/13/15 11:44 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 02/13/2015 07:34 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 2/13/15 7:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> In the "redesign checkpoint_segments" patch, Robert suggested keeping
>>> the settings' base unit as "number of segments", but allow conversions
>>> from MB, GB etc. I started looking into that and found that adding a new
>>> unit to guc.c is quite messy. The conversions are done with complicated
>>> if-switch-case constructs.
>>>
>>> Attached is a patch to refactor that, making the conversions
>>> table-driven. This doesn't change functionality, it just makes the code
>>> nicer.
>>
>> Looks good, but shouldn't there be a check for a unit that's neither
>> memory or time?
>
> Can you elaborate? We currently only support units for memory and time
> settings.

I'm thinking an Assert in case someone screws up the function call. But
perhaps I'm just being paranoid.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-02-13 21:13:11 Re: RangeType internal use
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-02-13 18:42:07 why does find_my_exec resolve symlinks?