On 9/13/21, 5:49 PM, "Kyotaro Horiguchi" <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > At Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:30:22 +0000, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossa...@amazon.com> > wrote in >> 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. > > I like 'in' slightly than 'for' in this context. I stand by Michael > that that name looks somewhat too long especially considering that > that name won't be completed on shell command lines, but won't fight > it, too. On the other hand the full-spelled name can be thought as > one can spell it out from memory easily than a name halfway shortened.
I think I see more support for shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages than for huge_pages_needed_for_shared_memory at the moment. I'll update the patch set in the next day or two to use shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages unless something changes in the meantime. Nathan
