Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:20:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yeah, I agree. What about
>> huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory_size or
>> huge_pages_needed_for_main_shared_memory? I'm still not stoked about
>> using "required" or "needed" in the name, as it sounds like huge pages
>> must be allocated for the server to run, which is only true if
>> huge_pages=on. I haven't thought of a better word to use, though.
>
> I prefer the first of those to the second. I don't find it
> particularly better or worse than my previous suggestion of
> shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages.

I am not particularly fond of the use "needed" in this context, so I'd
be fine with your suggestion of "shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages.
Some other ideas I could think of:
- shared_memory_size_as_huge_pages
- huge_pages_for_shared_memory_size

Having shared_memory_size in the GUC name is kind of appealing though
in terms of grepping, and one gets the relationship with
shared_memory_size immediately. If the consensus is
huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory_size, I won't fight it, but IMO
that's too long.
--
Michael