| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
| Date: | 2006-12-18 21:15:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1166476513.28377.12.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 22:08 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Is there any special reason why I can't use "Mb" and "Gb" and such
> > for effective_cache_size, the way I can for say shared_buffers?
>
> You can't use "Mb" or "Gb" for shared_buffers either, because those are
> not accepted units.
Magnus,
Here is a link that may help:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/config-setting.html
It looks like it is very pedantic about the input it can receive.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-12-18 21:26:56 | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-18 21:09:21 | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE |