Tom Lane wrote: > Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Right now following are measured in pages > > wal_buffers > > shared_buffers > > effective_cachesize > > while rest of the memory parameters are in kb. I thought being uniform would > > be good. Besides it will make it independent of page size as well. > > It would probably be reasonable to change effective_cache_size, since we > really do not know what the kernel's unit of buffering is (except on > Linux, where we *do* know that it ain't 8K ;-)). Personally I'd opt for > measuring it in MB not KB, though; that would be a much more convenient > unit on modern machines. We could easily make it a float for anyone who > thinks they know the cache size to sub-MB accuracy.
I thought the idea was that you could put 'm', 'k', or maybe 'p' after the value to specify the units. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
