Marko Karppinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frank Wiles wrote:
> > shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
> > shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
> > shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )
>
> I don't know if this is pedantic or just ob
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 13:10:02 +0300
Marko Karppinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Wiles wrote:
> > shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
> > shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
> > shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )
>
> I don't kno
Frank Wiles wrote:
shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
shared_buffers = 2048K ( 2MBs of shared_buffers )
I don't know if this is pedantic or just obsessive-compulsive,
but I think it should be MB and KB (or more p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
>> parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
>> uniformity.
> Why is that a good idea?
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:05:43 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I remain unalterably opposed to the notion of measuring
> >shared_buffers> in KB, but if you think you can get such a thing in
> >over my objections,
>
> > Are you OK with
Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This may be an unreasonable suggestion, but how about allowing both?
> I've seen several configuration systems do the following:
> shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
> shared_buffers = 100M ( 100 MBs of shared_buffers )
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This may be an unreasonable suggestion, but how about allowing both?
> > I've seen several configuration systems do the following:
> >
> > shared_buffers = 1 ( shared_buffers in pages )
> >
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
> > assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
> > clear from README that it is for validation
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, I it seems postgres --describe-config isn't working. It outputs
> nothing here.
Yeah, same here. I'll take a look --- I may have side-swiped that during
recent hacking in main.c.
regards, tom lane
---
Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I remain unalterably opposed to the notion of measuring shared_buffers
>> in KB, but if you think you can get such a thing in over my objections,
> Are you OK with MBs? I am fine with anything.
No, I'm not. shared_buffers should be measured in b
Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
> assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
> clear from README that it is for validation purposes only..
As it should be. Assign hooks have n
Hi,
Any updates/opinions? Should we convert assign hooks to perform actual
assignment and custom validation instead of just custom validation? It is
clear from README that it is for validation purposes only..
Or Shall i look for some place else to perform conversion?
Shridhar
On Tuesday 01 Ju
Neil Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > ISTM we had decided that putting vast amounts of documentation into the
> > file comments was exactly the thing *not* to do. It duplicates the SGML
> > documentation, thereby doubling the maintenance effort, to very little
> > purpose.
>
> I agree. If peop
Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM we had decided that putting vast amounts of documentation into the
file comments was exactly the thing *not* to do. It duplicates the SGML
documentation, thereby doubling the maintenance effort, to very little
purpose.
I agree. If people really think that adding more comments
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As long as we're messing around with PostgreSQL.conf, I propose that we
> comment the file much more thouroughly -- in the style of Apache's httpd.conf
> and our own pg_hba.conf (though maybe not quite as long as hba).
ISTM we had decided that putting vas
Shridhar, Tom,
As long as we're messing around with PostgreSQL.conf, I propose that we
comment the file much more thouroughly -- in the style of Apache's httpd.conf
and our own pg_hba.conf (though maybe not quite as long as hba). Someone
proposed this for 7.4 and we ran out of time, and as I'
On Tuesday 01 June 2004 14:12, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Actually I need to find out few more things about it. It is not as simple
> as adding a assign_hook. When I tried to initdb with changes, it demanded
> 64MB of shared buffers which I (now) think that somewhere NBuffers are used
> before po
On Monday 31 May 2004 22:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right now following are measured in pages
> > wal_buffers
> > shared_buffers
> > effective_cachesize
> > while rest of the memory parameters are in kb. I thought being uniform
> > would be good. Besid
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > So I disagree with the premise. Measuring these things in KB is not an
> > improvement.
>
> I agree, although I think changing effective_cache_size to be measured in KB/MB
> is worth doing.
I have to say as a user the parameters that
Tom Lane wrote:
So I disagree with the premise. Measuring these things in KB is not an
improvement.
I agree, although I think changing effective_cache_size to be
measured in KB/MB is worth doing.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner wi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right now following are measured in pages
> > wal_buffers
> > shared_buffers
> > effective_cachesize
> > while rest of the memory parameters are in kb. I thought being uniform would
> > be good. Besides it will make it indepen
Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right now following are measured in pages
> wal_buffers
> shared_buffers
> effective_cachesize
> while rest of the memory parameters are in kb. I thought being uniform would
> be good. Besides it will make it independent of page size as well.
It
On Monday 31 May 2004 18:41, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 May 2004 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
> > > > parameters in postgresql.conf to k
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On Sunday 30 May 2004 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
> > > parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
> > > uniformity.
> >
> > Why is
On Sunday 30 May 2004 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
> > parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
> > uniformity.
>
> Why is that a good idea?
Right now following a
> Hi,
>
> I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
> parameters
> in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and uniformity.
>
> Attached is a proof of concept patch that converts shared_buffers to
> kilobytes
> using assign_hook.
>
> It compiled all-right but I experi
Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related
> parameters in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and
> uniformity.
Why is that a good idea?
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Hi,
I was toying around with idea of converting all the memory related parameters
in postgresql.conf to kilobytes for simplicity and uniformity.
Attached is a proof of concept patch that converts shared_buffers to kilobytes
using assign_hook.
It compiled all-right but I experienced a strange b
28 matches
Mail list logo
