Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: GUC with units, details

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GUC with units, details
Date: 2006-07-26 23:16:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jul 27, 2006, at 6:10 , Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

> The thing is, most memory sizes in postgres need to be some  
> multiple of
> a page size. You can't have a shared buffers of exactly 100000 bytes,
> while 102400 bytes is possible.

I've seen this mentioned a couple of times. I'm not nearly as  
familiar with these settings as I should be, but it seems to me that  
if the memory size *does* need to be a integral multiple of page  
size, e.g., n * page_size = memory_size,  why isn't that memory  
configured as the integer n rather than memory_size? Wouldn't this  
get around the issue altogether? Granted, this is a larger change  
than allowing units for the values, which I think is a good thing.  
But it is perhaps shows more clearly the relationship between the  
different values in postgresql.conf and prevents setting memory sizes  
that *aren't* multiples of page size.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Florian G. PflugDate: 2006-07-27 00:41:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for VS.Net 2005's strxfrm() bug
Previous:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2006-07-26 22:42:41
Subject: Re: pgbench enhancements

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group