On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:05:43 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. This may be an unreasonable suggestion, but how about allowing both? I've seen several configuration systems do the following: shared_buffers = 10000 ( shared_buffers in pages ) shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers ) shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers ) Using something like this would leave the old functionality in tact, allow users to use what they like, and shouldn't introduce that much complexity into the code. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://frank.wiles.org --------------------------------- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
