Re: Questions about guc units
От | Jim C. Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Questions about guc units |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060925183902.GZ19827@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Questions about guc units (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Questions about guc units
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:03:50AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Montag, 25. September 2006 04:04 schrieb ITAGAKI Takahiro: > > #shared_buffers = 32000kB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB > > #temp_buffers = 8000kB # min 800kB > > #effective_cache_size = 8000kB > > > > Are there any reasons to continue to use 1000-unit numbers? Megabyte-unit > > (32MB and 8MB) seems to be more friendly for users. It increases some > > amount of values (4000 vs. 4096), but there is little in it. > > The reason with the shared_buffers is that the detection code in initdb has > 400kB as minimum value, and it would be pretty complicated to code the > detection code to handle both kB and MB units. If someone wants to try it, > though, please go ahead. What about 0.4MB? Granted, it's uglier than 400kB, but anyone running on a machine that can't handle at least 1MB is already in the "pretty ugly" realm... -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: