Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/26/2004 1:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Another issue is what we do with the effective_cache_size value once we
>>> have a number we trust. We can't readily change the size of the ARC
>>> lists on the fly.
>>
> Huh? I thought effective_cache_size was just used as an factor the cost
> estimation equation.
>>
>> Today, that is true. Jan is speculating about using it as a parameter
>> of the ARC cache management algorithm ... and that worries me.
> If we need another config option, it's not that we are running out of
> possible names, is it?
No, the point is that the value is not very trustworthy at the moment.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
