| From: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions about guc units |
| Date: | 2006-09-26 02:58:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20060926113335.5271.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > #max_fsm_pages = 1600000 # min max_fsm_relations*16, 6 bytes each
>
> max_fsm_pages doesn't have a discernible unit
Yes, max_fsm_*pages* doesn't have a unit, but can we treat the value as
"the amount of trackable database size by fsm" or "estimated database size" ?
(the latter is a bit too radical interpretation, though.)
So I think it is not so odd to give a unit to max_fsm_pages.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-09-26 03:39:19 | guc units cleanup |
| Previous Message | Pang Zaihu | 2006-09-26 01:09:33 | Re: String Similarity |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-09-26 03:39:19 | guc units cleanup |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-09-26 00:52:49 | minor editorial of tsearch2 readme |