Re: request for feedback - read-only GUC variables, pg_settings

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: request for feedback - read-only GUC variables, pg_settings
Date: 2003-12-06 15:31:36
Message-ID: 200312061531.hB6FVaj00698@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps then neither "block" nor "page" is best. Perhaps it should be
> "buffer_size" or something like that?

It is really the storage block size, and that is manifest in the buffer
size and disk block size used.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-12-06 15:43:18 Re: [GENERAL] Transaction Question
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-12-06 15:20:29 Re: Postgres 7.3.5 and count('x')