Joe Conway wrote:
> We (mostly Bruce, Tom, Peter, and I) have been having a discussion on
> the PATCHES list regarding some new functionality related to read-only
> GUC variables. The net result is pasted at the bottom of this post. Here
> is a link to the discussion:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-11/msg00363.php
>
> In short, 5 new read-only GUC variables are created allowing the value
> of certain compile-time settings to be queried. Also the pg_settings
> system view has been expanded to include category, short_desc, and
> extra_desc (corresponding to group, short_desc, and long_desc in the
> generic guc structure). The 5 GUC variables are:
>
> block_size - int
> Shows size of a disk block
> The main open question at this point is the name for the "block_size"
> variable. Peter favors "block_size", Bruce favors "page_size", Tom
> hasn't taken a position on that specific issue. Does anyone have and
> opinion on the variable name, or any general comments before I commit this?
I hate to reply to this because I have already cast my vote, but
"block_size" does not report the size of a disk block. It reports the
size of a PostgreSQL block/page. Disk blocks are almost always 512
bytes in size.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073