Joe Conway wrote: > We (mostly Bruce, Tom, Peter, and I) have been having a discussion on > the PATCHES list regarding some new functionality related to read-only > GUC variables. The net result is pasted at the bottom of this post. Here > is a link to the discussion: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-11/msg00363.php > > In short, 5 new read-only GUC variables are created allowing the value > of certain compile-time settings to be queried. Also the pg_settings > system view has been expanded to include category, short_desc, and > extra_desc (corresponding to group, short_desc, and long_desc in the > generic guc structure). The 5 GUC variables are: > > block_size - int > Shows size of a disk block
> The main open question at this point is the name for the "block_size" > variable. Peter favors "block_size", Bruce favors "page_size", Tom > hasn't taken a position on that specific issue. Does anyone have and > opinion on the variable name, or any general comments before I commit this? I hate to reply to this because I have already cast my vote, but "block_size" does not report the size of a disk block. It reports the size of a PostgreSQL block/page. Disk blocks are almost always 512 bytes in size. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
