Re: effective_cache_size vs units

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Date: 2006-12-19 22:08:47
Message-ID: 458862EF.4000109@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> + #
>> + # Any memory setting may use a shortened notation such as 1024MB or
>> 1GB.
>> + # Please take note of the case next to the unit size.
>> + #
>
> Well, if you add that, you should also list all the other valid units.
> But it's quite redundant, because nearly all the parameters that take
> units are already listed with units in the default file. (Which makes
> Magnus's mistake all the more curios.)
>

The explanation is pretty simple. I was in a hurry to set it, just
opened the file up in vi, jumped to effective cache size, and set it. I
remembered that "hey, I can spec it in Mb now, I don't have to think,
brilliant", and just typed it in. Restarted pg and noticed it wouldn't
start...

Had I actually read through all the documentation before I did it, it
certainly wouldn't have been a problem. I doubt many users actually do
that, though. In most cases, I just assume they would just assume they
can't use units on it because the default value in the file doesn't have
units.

And frankly, this is the only case I can recall having seen when the
input is actually case sensitive between Mb and MB. Could be that I'm
not exposed to enough systems that take such input, but I can't imagine
there aren't others who would make the same mistake.

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Glen Parker 2006-12-19 22:09:10 Re: Autovacuum Improvements
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-12-19 21:59:49 Re: effective_cache_size vs units