Re: effective_cache_size vs units

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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