Frank Wiles wrote:
shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )
I don't know if this is pedantic or just obsessive-compulsive,
but I think it should be MB and KB (or more
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:10:02 +0300
Marko Karppinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Wiles wrote:
shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )
I don't know if this
Marko Karppinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Wiles wrote:
shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )
I don't know if this is pedantic or just
Hi,
Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
clear from README that it is for validation purposes only..
Or Shall i look for some place else to perform conversion?
Shridhar
On Tuesday 01
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
clear from README that it is for validation purposes only..
As it should be. Assign hooks have no
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
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, I it seems postgres --describe-config isn't working. It outputs
nothing here.
Yeah, same here. I'll take a look --- I may have side-swiped that during
recent hacking in main.c.
regards, tom lane
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
clear from README that it is for validation
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:59, Tom Lane wrote:
Frank Wiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This may be an unreasonable suggestion, but how about allowing both?
I've seen several configuration systems do the following:
shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
Frank Wiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This may be an unreasonable suggestion, but how about allowing both?
I've seen several configuration systems do the following:
shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
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
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
uniformity.
Why is that a good idea?
Two reasons:
On Monday 31 May 2004 22:00, 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
On Tuesday 01 June 2004 14:12, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Actually I need to find out few more things about it. It is not as simple
as adding a assign_hook. When I tried to initdb with changes, it demanded
64MB of shared buffers which I (now) think that somewhere NBuffers are used
before
Shridhar, Tom,
As long as we're messing around with PostgreSQL.conf, I propose that we
comment the file much more thouroughly -- in the style of Apache's httpd.conf
and our own pg_hba.conf (though maybe not quite as long as hba). Someone
proposed this for 7.4 and we ran out of time, and as
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As long as we're messing around with PostgreSQL.conf, I propose that we
comment the file much more thouroughly -- in the style of Apache's httpd.conf
and our own pg_hba.conf (though maybe not quite as long as hba).
ISTM we had decided that putting vast
Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM we had decided that putting vast amounts of documentation into the
file comments was exactly the thing *not* to do. It duplicates the SGML
documentation, thereby doubling the maintenance effort, to very little
purpose.
I agree. If people really think that adding more comments
Neil Conway wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM we had decided that putting vast amounts of documentation into the
file comments was exactly the thing *not* to do. It duplicates the SGML
documentation, thereby doubling the maintenance effort, to very little
purpose.
I agree. If people really
On Sunday 30 May 2004 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
uniformity.
Why is that a good idea?
Right now following are
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Sunday 30 May 2004 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
uniformity.
Why is that a good
On Monday 31 May 2004 18:41, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Sunday 30 May 2004 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for
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
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
Tom Lane wrote:
So I disagree with the premise. Measuring these things in KB is not an
improvement.
I agree, although I think changing effective_cache_size to be
measured in KB/MB is worth doing.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
So I disagree with the premise. Measuring these things in KB is not an
improvement.
I agree, although I think changing effective_cache_size to be measured in KB/MB
is worth doing.
I have to say as a user the parameters that are
Hi,
I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related parameters
in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and uniformity.
Attached is a proof of concept patch that converts shared_buffers to kilobytes
using assign_hook.
It compiled all-right but I experienced a strange
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
uniformity.
Why is that a good idea?
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Hi,
I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
parameters
in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and uniformity.
Attached is a proof of concept patch that converts shared_buffers to
kilobytes
using assign_hook.
It compiled all-right but I experienced a
28 matches
Mail list logo
