Re: effective_cache_size vs units - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD
Subject Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Date
Msg-id E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901A355BF@m0143.s-mxs.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: effective_cache_size vs units  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > Yes, and I can't think of a single reason why we'd let people
specify
> > anything in millibytes, or kilobits.
>
> How about a configuration option related to connection throughput,
which is
> typically measured in bits?

We'd use "kbit". I don't see us using "kb" in that case (or was it kB
:-).

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD"
Date:
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: pg_ctl options