Re: effective_cache_size vs units - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Date
Msg-id 1166476513.28377.12.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: effective_cache_size vs units  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 22:08 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Is there any special reason why I can't use "Mb" and "Gb" and such
> > for effective_cache_size, the way I can for say shared_buffers?
> 
> You can't use "Mb" or "Gb" for shared_buffers either, because those are 
> not accepted units.

Magnus,

Here is a link that may help:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/config-setting.html

It looks like it is very pedantic about the input it can receive.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




> 
-- 
     === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997            http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units