Re: request for feedback - read-only GUC variables,

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: request for feedback - read-only GUC variables,
Date: 2003-12-02 23:43:01
Message-ID: 20031202193934.C38069@ganymede.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Joe Conway wrote:

> We (mostly Bruce, Tom, Peter, and I) have been having a discussion on
> the PATCHES list regarding some new functionality related to read-only
> GUC variables. The net result is pasted at the bottom of this post. Here
> is a link to the discussion:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-11/msg00363.php
>
> In short, 5 new read-only GUC variables are created allowing the value
> of certain compile-time settings to be queried. Also the pg_settings
> system view has been expanded to include category, short_desc, and
> extra_desc (corresponding to group, short_desc, and long_desc in the
> generic guc structure). The 5 GUC variables are:
>
> block_size - int
> Shows size of a disk block
> integer_datetimes - bool
> Datetimes are integer based
> max_function_args - int
> Shows the maximum number of function arguments
> max_identifier_length - int
> Shows the maximum identifier length
> max_index_keys - int
> Shows the maximum number of index keys
>
> The main open question at this point is the name for the "block_size"
> variable. Peter favors "block_size", Bruce favors "page_size", Tom
> hasn't taken a position on that specific issue. Does anyone have and
> opinion on the variable name, or any general comments before I commit this?

PAGE_SIZE generally refers to memory allocations, no?

I'd go with block_size ...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Natoli 2003-12-03 01:36:59 fork/exec problem: DynaHashCxt
Previous Message Gaetano Mendola 2003-12-02 23:29:43 Re: rebuilding rpm for RH9 error