On 9/13/21, 1:25 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Seems like "huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory" would be sufficient.
I think we are down to either shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages or huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory. Robert's argument against huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory was that it might sound like only part of shared memory uses huge pages and we're only giving the number required for that. Speaking of which, isn't that technically true? For shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages, the intent is to make it sound like we are providing shared_memory_size in terms of the huge page size, but I think it could also be interpreted as "the amount of shared memory that is currently stored in huge pages." I personally lean towards huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory because it feels the most clear and direct to me. I'm not vehemently opposed to shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages, though. I don't think either one is too misleading. Nathan
