On 9/13/21, 8:59 AM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:43 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
>> I think that's an improvement. The only other idea I have at the
>> moment is num_huge_pages_required_for_shared_memory.
>
> Hmm, that to me sounds like maybe only part of shared memory uses huge
> pages and maybe we're just giving you the number required for that
> part. I realize that it doesn't work that way but I don't know if
> everyone will.
Yeah, I agree. What about
huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory_size or
huge_pages_needed_for_main_shared_memory? I'm still not stoked about
using "required" or "needed" in the name, as it sounds like huge pages
must be allocated for the server to run, which is only true if
huge_pages=on. I haven't thought of a better word to use, though.
Nathan