Re: effective_cache_size vs units
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200612192259.50920.peter_e@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: effective_cache_size vs units ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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.) In my mind, this is pretty silly. There is no reputable precedent anywhere for variant capitalization in unit names. Next thing we point out that zeros are significant in the interior of numbers, or what? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: