Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
Date
Msg-id 4cc5b434-b174-9aae-197b-737db6cac4e3@oss.nttdata.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
List pgsql-hackers

On 2021/09/08 12:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 05:08:43PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> On 9/6/21, 9:00 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>> +   sprintf(buf, "%lu MB", size_mb);
>>> +   SetConfigOption("shared_memory_size", buf, PGC_INTERNAL, PGC_S_OVERRIDE);
>>> One small-ish comment about 0002: there is no need to add the unit
>>> into the buffer set as GUC_UNIT_MB would take care of that.  The patch
>>> looks fine.
>>
>> I fixed this in v7.
> 
> Switched the variable name to shared_memory_size_mb for easier
> grepping, moved it to a more correct location with the other read-only
> GUCS, and applied 0002.  Well, 0001 here.

Thanks for adding useful feature!

+        {"shared_memory_size", PGC_INTERNAL, RESOURCES_MEM,

When reading the applied code, I found the category of shared_memory_size
is RESOURCES_MEM. Why? This seems right because the parameter is related
to memory resource. But since its context is PGC_INTERNAL, PRESET_OPTIONS
is more proper as the category? BTW, the category of any other
PGC_INTERNAL parameters seems to be PRESET_OPTIONS.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: prevent immature WAL streaming
Next
From:
Date:
Subject: RE: [PATCH] New default role allowing to change per-role/database settings