| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: request for feedback - read-only GUC variables, pg_settings |
| Date: | 2003-12-04 12:21:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20031204122137.GB24160@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 06:53:40AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
> > The main open question at this point is the name for the "block_size"
> > variable. Peter favors "block_size", Bruce favors "page_size", Tom
> > hasn't taken a position on that specific issue. Does anyone have and
> > opinion on the variable name, or any general comments before I commit this?
>
> I hate to reply to this because I have already cast my vote, but
> "block_size" does not report the size of a disk block. It reports the
> size of a PostgreSQL block/page. Disk blocks are almost always 512
> bytes in size.
pg_block_size ?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"God is real, unless declared as int"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff | 2003-12-04 13:00:14 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.3.4 gets killed by SIG_KILL |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-04 12:03:23 | Re: request for feedback - read-only GUC variables, |