From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Converting postgresql.conf parameters to kilobytes |
Date: | 2004-06-02 14:55:38 |
Message-ID: | 200406022025.38147.shridhar@frodo.hserus.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> writes:
> > Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
> > assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
> > clear from README that it is for validation purposes only..
>
> As it should be. Assign hooks have no business altering the
> user-supplied value.
OK
> 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.
> the way to do it is to decouple the GUC parameter from NBuffers. The
> GUC setting is whatever it is; you can reject the value if it's too
> far out of range, but you do not editorialize upon it. What you do is
> compute the derived value for NBuffers and assign that in the assign
> hook.
That means removing NBuffers from declaration for config structure and
substituting a dummy variable for it?
If you think this is good and acceptable enough, I will proceed making changes
that way. Shall I take this as guideline for other parameters as well?
Shridhar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-02 14:57:05 | Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-06-02 14:54:36 | Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER |