Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4cc5b434-b174-9aae-197b-737db6cac4e3@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/09/08 12:50, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 05:08:43PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> On 9/6/21, 9:00 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: >>> + sprintf(buf, "%lu MB", size_mb); >>> + SetConfigOption("shared_memory_size", buf, PGC_INTERNAL, PGC_S_OVERRIDE); >>> One small-ish comment about 0002: there is no need to add the unit >>> into the buffer set as GUC_UNIT_MB would take care of that. The patch >>> looks fine. >> >> I fixed this in v7. > > Switched the variable name to shared_memory_size_mb for easier > grepping, moved it to a more correct location with the other read-only > GUCS, and applied 0002. Well, 0001 here. Thanks for adding useful feature! + {"shared_memory_size", PGC_INTERNAL, RESOURCES_MEM, When reading the applied code, I found the category of shared_memory_size is RESOURCES_MEM. Why? This seems right because the parameter is related to memory resource. But since its context is PGC_INTERNAL, PRESET_OPTIONS is more proper as the category? BTW, the category of any other PGC_INTERNAL parameters seems to be PRESET_OPTIONS. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: