| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| 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 21:59:49 |
| Message-ID: | 200612192259.50920.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
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.)
In my mind, this is pretty silly. There is no reputable precedent
anywhere for variant capitalization in unit names. Next thing we point
out that zeros are significant in the interior of numbers, or what?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-12-19 22:08:47 | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-19 21:57:24 | Re: Autovacuum Improvements |