Re: Converting postgresql.conf parameters to kilobytes

From: Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Converting postgresql.conf parameters to kilobytes
Date: 2004-06-02 15:20:02
Message-ID: 20040602102002.0e7e4917.frank@wiles.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:05:43 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> writes:
> >> I remain unalterably opposed to the notion of measuring
> >shared_buffers> in KB, but if you think you can get such a thing in
> >over my objections,
>
> > Are you OK with MBs? I am fine with anything.
>
> No, I'm not. shared_buffers should be measured in buffers (ie,
> pages). Anything else is obscurantism. Not to mention highly likely
> to confuse people who are used to how it's been set in the past.

This may be an unreasonable suggestion, but how about allowing both?
I've seen several configuration systems do the following:

shared_buffers = 10000 ( shared_buffers in pages )
shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )

Using something like this would leave the old functionality in tact,
allow users to use what they like, and shouldn't introduce that much
complexity into the code.

---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
http://frank.wiles.org
---------------------------------

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-06-02 15:21:44 Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2004-06-02 15:13:38 Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER