From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Hammond <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
Date: | 2007-01-03 15:33:35 |
Message-ID: | 20A73B60-41F0-4FAB-BF91-252F688E6449@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
You just proved the case for why the units shouldn't be case sensitive:
On Dec 30, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Andrew Hammond wrote:
> I agree. But perhaps the solution instead of failing is to throw a
> warning to the effect of "Not to be pedantic, but you said mb and
> millibits as a unit doesn't make sense in this context. Assuming you
> meant MB (MegaBits)." and then start up.
Do we really want people specifying effective_cache_size in *bits*,
mega or not? I think no.
To reply to Peter's comment, yes, bits would be useful if we ever
actually have any settings relating to network bandwidth. But that's
a really big IF. IF we do eventually decide to add such a setting, I
think it would make the most sense to spell out 'bits' in the unit.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-01-03 15:35:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-01-03 15:26:34 | Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay |