On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:20:00PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: >> 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. > > I prefer the first of those to the second. I don't find it > particularly better or worse than my previous suggestion of > shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages.
I am not particularly fond of the use "needed" in this context, so I'd be fine with your suggestion of "shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages. Some other ideas I could think of: - shared_memory_size_as_huge_pages - huge_pages_for_shared_memory_size Having shared_memory_size in the GUC name is kind of appealing though in terms of grepping, and one gets the relationship with shared_memory_size immediately. If the consensus is huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory_size, I won't fight it, but IMO that's too long. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
