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.
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Have we decoupled these two variables?
> Their values are still the same, but Tom suggested we not couple them
> inextricably by giving users access to them as one variable.
The only reason they are the same is that pg_proc.proargtyp
Josh Berkus wrote:
max_function_args - int
Shows the maximum number of function arguments
max_index_keys - int
Shows the maximum number of index keys
Have we decoupled these two variables? Last I checked, their values still
had to be identical. If they have not been decoupled and won't b
Bruce, Marc, Joe:
> > > max_function_args - int
> > >Shows the maximum number of function arguments
> > > max_index_keys - int
> > >Shows the maximum number of index keys
Have we decoupled these two variables? Last I checked, their values still
had to be identical. If they have not
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"
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I'd go with block_size ...
True, page size usually references virtual memory pages, so it is
related to virtual memory mapping. Block size is much more related to
on-disk storage, true. The only reason I was leaning toward page is
that it is possible t
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
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > block_size - int
> >Shows size of a disk block
> > integer_datetimes - bool
> >Datetimes are integer based
> > max_function_args - int
> >Shows the maximum number of function arguments
> > max_identifier_length - int
> >Shows the maximum identifier length
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
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, 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://
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/
11 matches
Mail list logo
