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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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