Re: GUC with units, details

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GUC with units, details
Date: 2006-07-26 23:16:25
Message-ID: EFAD1510-9D00-4E9A-B18B-51100379C97B@seespotcode.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Jul 27, 2006, at 6:10 , Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

> The thing is, most memory sizes in postgres need to be some
> multiple of
> a page size. You can't have a shared buffers of exactly 100000 bytes,
> while 102400 bytes is possible.

I've seen this mentioned a couple of times. I'm not nearly as
familiar with these settings as I should be, but it seems to me that
if the memory size *does* need to be a integral multiple of page
size, e.g., n * page_size = memory_size, why isn't that memory
configured as the integer n rather than memory_size? Wouldn't this
get around the issue altogether? Granted, this is a larger change
than allowing units for the values, which I think is a good thing.
But it is perhaps shows more clearly the relationship between the
different values in postgresql.conf and prevents setting memory sizes
that *aren't* multiples of page size.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian G. Pflug 2006-07-27 00:41:55 Re: [HACKERS] Patch for VS.Net 2005's strxfrm() bug
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2006-07-26 22:42:41 Re: pgbench enhancements