From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: GUC with units, details |
Date: | 2006-07-26 23:16:25 |
Message-ID: | EFAD1510-9D00-4E9A-B18B-51100379C97B@seespotcode.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 27, 2006, at 6:10 , Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> The thing is, most memory sizes in postgres need to be some
> multiple of
> a page size. You can't have a shared buffers of exactly 100000 bytes,
> while 102400 bytes is possible.
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times. I'm not nearly as
familiar with these settings as I should be, but it seems to me that
if the memory size *does* need to be a integral multiple of page
size, e.g., n * page_size = memory_size, why isn't that memory
configured as the integer n rather than memory_size? Wouldn't this
get around the issue altogether? Granted, this is a larger change
than allowing units for the values, which I think is a good thing.
But it is perhaps shows more clearly the relationship between the
different values in postgresql.conf and prevents setting memory sizes
that *aren't* multiples of page size.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2006-07-27 00:41:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for VS.Net 2005's strxfrm() bug |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2006-07-26 22:42:41 | Re: pgbench enhancements |