Re: effective_cache_size is a real? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: effective_cache_size is a real?
Date
Msg-id 1153776233.2592.446.camel@holly
Whole thread Raw
In response to effective_cache_size is a real?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: effective_cache_size is a real?  (Gregory S Stark <gsstark@MIT.EDU>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 22:55 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed to 
> integer)?  The initial revision of guc.c already has it that way, so it 
> was probably blindly adapted from the previous adhockery that had all 
> planner variables be doubles.

Makes no sense to me as a real. It should be an integer, since it is the
effective number of cache pages, not KB, MB or GB.

--  Simon Riggs              EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: TODO: Mark change-on-restart-only values in
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Back online; Trip postponed