Greg Stark wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Perhaps then neither "block"
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 06:53:40AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
> > 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
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.postgresq
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/
