Casey Duncan wrote:
> Seems like the unit used for shared_buffers (and others) should be
> megabytes then with a minimum of 1 (or more). Is less than 1MB
> granularity really useful here?
Yes, there are platforms that allow as little as 512 kB of shared memory
by default.
--
Peter Eisentraut
ht
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #max_fsm_pages = 160# min max_fsm_relations*16, 6 bytes each
>
> max_fsm_pages doesn't have a discernible unit
Yes, max_fsm_*pages* doesn't have a unit, but can we treat the value as
"the amount of trackable database size by fsm" or "e
On Sep 25, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Montag, 25. September 2006 04:04 schrieb ITAGAKI Takahiro:
#shared_buffers = 32000kB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
#temp_buffers = 8000kB # min 800kB
#effective_cache_size = 8000kB
Are there any reasons to continue to
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > The reason with the shared_buffers is that the detection code in
> > initdb has 400kB as minimum value, and it would be pretty
> > complicated to code the detection code to handle both kB and MB
> > units. If someone wants to try it, though, please go ahead.
>
> What about
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:03:50AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Montag, 25. September 2006 04:04 schrieb ITAGAKI Takahiro:
> > #shared_buffers = 32000kB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
> > #temp_buffers = 8000kB # min 800kB
> > #effective_cache_size = 8000kB
> >
> > Are th
Am Montag, 25. September 2006 04:04 schrieb ITAGAKI Takahiro:
> #shared_buffers = 32000kB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
> #temp_buffers = 8000kB # min 800kB
> #effective_cache_size = 8000kB
>
> Are there any reasons to continue to use 1000-unit numbers? Megabyte-unit
> (32MB an
Hi hackers,
I have some questions about guc units, new feature in 8.2.
#shared_buffers = 32000kB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
#temp_buffers = 8000kB # min 800kB
#effective_cache_size = 8000kB
Are there any reasons to continue to use 1000-unit numbers? Megabyte-unit
(32MB and
