From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
Date: | 2006-12-19 22:09:20 |
Message-ID: | 1166566160.22487.149.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 22:59 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > + #
> > + # Any memory setting may use a shortened notation such as 1024MB or
> > 1GB.
> > + # Please take note of the case next to the unit size.
> > + #
>
> Well, if you add that, you should also list all the other valid units.
Why? It is clearly just an example.
> But it's quite redundant, because nearly all the parameters that take
> units are already listed with units in the default file. (Which makes
> Magnus's mistake all the more curios.)
Not really, most people I know don't even consider the difference
between MB and Mb... shoot most people think that 1000MB equals one
Gigabyte.
>
> In my mind, this is pretty silly. There is no reputable precedent
> anywhere for variant capitalization in unit names.
I am not suggestion variant capitalization. I am suggestion a simple
document patch to help eliminate what may not be obvious.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-12-19 22:10:22 | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
Previous Message | Glen Parker | 2006-12-19 22:09:10 | Re: Autovacuum Improvements |