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

Re: effective_cache_size vs units

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "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: 2007-01-03 11:56:11
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901A355BF@m0143.s-mxs.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > 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?

We'd use "kbit". I don't see us using "kb" in that case (or was it kB
:-).

Andreas

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-01-03 14:12:10
Subject: pg_ctl options
Previous:From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SDDate: 2007-01-03 11:18:42
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint

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