Re: Refactoring GUC unit conversions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: Refactoring GUC unit conversions
Date
Msg-id 54DE6041.9030603@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Refactoring GUC unit conversions  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2/13/15 11:44 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 02/13/2015 07:34 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 2/13/15 7:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> In the "redesign checkpoint_segments" patch, Robert suggested keeping
>>> the settings' base unit as "number of segments", but allow conversions
>>> from MB, GB etc. I started looking into that and found that adding a new
>>> unit to guc.c is quite messy. The conversions are done with complicated
>>> if-switch-case constructs.
>>>
>>> Attached is a patch to refactor that, making the conversions
>>> table-driven. This doesn't change functionality, it just makes the code
>>> nicer.
>>
>> Looks good, but shouldn't there be a check for a unit that's neither
>> memory or time?
>
> Can you elaborate? We currently only support units for memory and time
> settings.

I'm thinking an Assert in case someone screws up the function call. But 
perhaps I'm just being paranoid.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: why does find_my_exec resolve symlinks?
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: RangeType internal use