Re: effective_cache_size vs units

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Дата
Msg-id 458862EF.4000109@hagander.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: effective_cache_size vs units  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Ответы Re: effective_cache_size vs units  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> + #
>> + # Any memory setting may use a shortened notation such as 1024MB or
>> 1GB.
>> + # Please take note of the case next to the unit size.
>> + #
> 
> Well, if you add that, you should also list all the other valid units.  
> But it's quite redundant, because nearly all the parameters that take 
> units are already listed with units in the default file.  (Which makes 
> Magnus's mistake all the more curios.)
> 

The explanation is pretty simple. I was in a hurry to set it, just
opened the file up in vi, jumped to effective cache size, and set it. I
remembered that "hey, I can spec it in Mb now, I don't have to think,
brilliant", and just typed it in. Restarted pg and noticed it wouldn't
start...

Had I actually read through all the documentation before I did it, it
certainly wouldn't have been a problem. I doubt many users actually do
that, though. In most cases, I just assume they would just assume they
can't use units on it because the default value in the file doesn't have
units.

And frankly, this is the only case I can recall having seen when the
input is actually case sensitive between Mb and MB. Could be that I'm
not exposed to enough systems that take such input, but I can't imagine
there aren't others who would make the same mistake.

//Magnus


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Joshua D. Drake"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Следующее
От: "Joshua D. Drake"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: effective_cache_size vs units