Re: effective_cache_size vs units - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Date
Msg-id 200612192259.50920.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: effective_cache_size vs units  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: effective_cache_size vs units  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: effective_cache_size vs units  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> + #
> + # Any memory setting may use a shortened notation such as 1024MB or
> 1GB.
> + # Please take note of the case next to the unit size.
> + #

Well, if you add that, you should also list all the other valid units.  
But it's quite redundant, because nearly all the parameters that take 
units are already listed with units in the default file.  (Which makes 
Magnus's mistake all the more curios.)

In my mind, this is pretty silly.  There is no reputable precedent 
anywhere for variant capitalization in unit names.  Next thing we point 
out that zeros are significant in the interior of numbers, or what?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units