| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Memory unit GUC range checks |
| Date: | 2018-05-16 12:19:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1bfe7f4a-7e22-aa6e-7b37-f4d222ed2d67@iki.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I played around with the GUC memory units, specifically to test the new
GUC_UNIT_BYTES flag (commit 6e7baa32):
$ postmaster -c track_activity_query_size=1024kB
FATAL: 1048576 is outside the valid range for parameter
"track_activity_query_size" (100 .. 102400)
$ postmaster -c track_activity_query_size=1024MB
FATAL: 1073741824 is outside the valid range for parameter
"track_activity_query_size" (100 .. 102400)
$ postmaster -c track_activity_query_size=1024GB
FATAL: invalid value for parameter "track_activity_query_size": "1024GB"
HINT: Value exceeds integer range.
$ postmaster -c track_activity_query_size=1024TB
FATAL: invalid value for parameter "track_activity_query_size": "1024TB"
HINT: Valid units for this parameter are "kB", "MB", "GB", and "TB".
The first two look OK, but the last two cases seem a bit weird. With
1024 GB, it would be nice to print the valid range, like in the first
two cases.
The HINT in the last message seems wrong: the hint claims that "TB" is
accepted, yet "1024 TB" was not accepted. And shouldn't the hint also
mention "B", since we accept that now?
Testing a setting with GUC_UNIT_KB:
$ postmaster -c work_mem=102400B
FATAL: invalid value for parameter "work_mem": "100000B"
HINT: Valid units for this parameter are "kB", "MB", "GB", and "TB".
This time the hint is accurate, but why is "B" not accepted here? Seems
inconsistent.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2018-05-16 12:49:29 | Re: Memory unit GUC range checks |
| Previous Message | Stas Kelvich | 2018-05-16 12:02:02 | Re: Global snapshots |