Re: effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta
Date: 2016-05-24 22:22:01
Message-ID: CAMkU=1wiW1t+a2u+kvTPqm-OiPRYsBjM8QBVnjj2w7x7bAPEfA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > commit 1aba62ec made zero be an illegal value for effective_io_concurrency.
>> > i think this was an accident. If not, then the sample postgresql.conf
>> > (at least) needs to be updated.
>>
>> It looks like the problem is that the new range check
>>
>> + /* This range check shouldn't fail, but let's be paranoid */
>> + return (new_prefetch_pages > 0.0 && new_prefetch_pages < (double) INT_MAX);
>>
>> should be testing for >= 0.0 not > 0.0.
>
> Hmm, yeah, it looks like that's it. Will fix.
>

Thanks, works as expected now.

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-05-24 22:26:41 Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2016-05-24 22:13:53 Re: Allow COPY to use parameters