Re: effective_cache_size vs units
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200612192352.kBJNqVO14152@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: effective_cache_size vs units (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote: > > "Kenneth Marshall" <ktm@it.is.rice.edu> writes: > > > My one comment is that a little 'b' is used to indicate bits normally > > and a capital 'B' is used to indicate bytes. So > > kb = '1024 bits' > > kB = '1024 bytes' > > I do think that whether or not the k/m/g is upper case or lower case > > is immaterial. > > Yes, well, no actually there are standard capitalizations for the k and M and > G. A lowercase g is a gram and a lowercase m means "milli-". I will have 150 grams of shared memory, please. > But I think that only gets you as far as concluding that Postgres ought to > consistently use kB MB and GB in its own output. Which afaik it does. > > To reach a conclusion about whether it should restrict valid user input > similarly you would have to make some sort of argument about what problems it > could lead to if we allow users to be sloppy. > > I could see such an argument being made but it requires a lot of speculation > about hypothetical future parameters and future problems. When we have known > real problems today. > > And yes, btw, the case sensitivity of these units had already surprised and > bothered me earlier and I failed to mention it at the time. Agreed. However, I see 'ms' as milliseconds, so perhaps the M vs. m is already in use. I think we at least need to document the case sensitivity and improve the error message. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: