Re: Questions about guc units
От | Casey Duncan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Questions about guc units |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 65B4CBDD-B670-4AD4-B331-AF56FCA391DD@pandora.com 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 Sep 25, 2006, at 1:03 AM, 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. Seems like the unit used for shared_buffers (and others) should be megabytes then with a minimum of 1 (or more). Is less than 1MB granularity really useful here? On modern hardware 1MB of RAM is in the noise. -Casey
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: