| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Converting postgresql.conf parameters to kilobytes |
| Date: | 2004-06-02 15:05:43 |
| Message-ID: | 24520.1086188743@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> writes:
>> I remain unalterably opposed to the notion of measuring shared_buffers
>> in KB, but if you think you can get such a thing in over my objections,
> Are you OK with MBs? I am fine with anything.
No, I'm not. shared_buffers should be measured in buffers (ie, pages).
Anything else is obscurantism. Not to mention highly likely to confuse
people who are used to how it's been set in the past.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-02 15:12:31 | Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-02 15:01:50 | Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER |