Subject: Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements?
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
 Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>, Don Seiler <don@seiler.us>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <YS8jgN37QvlrKnzQ@paquier.xyz>
 <298B6D88-7B71-4E1B-BFC4-E7BF3A32960D@amazon.com>
 <YTCCXOEdjbN9Sl+5@paquier.xyz>
 <23F67FC0-E432-4324-BEA4-F99B126510EA@amazon.com>
 <YTF+PTIwtDghavEc@paquier.xyz>
 <7ED221D0-0D75-46F8-8D6C-8AF70D8EABE7@amazon.com>
 <YTV8l8V+uKVcTVnV@paquier.xyz>
 <89EFD5FB-3C28-459C-9D6D-C9F93F7C2A54@amazon.com>
 <YTbjyHkTa2xBdzgf@paquier.xyz>
 <578A8F79-FD13-4408-865F-4D31EE5D8123@amazon.com>
 <YTgy8PdP1+9s6NBz@paquier.xyz>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Message-ID: <4cc5b434-b174-9aae-197b-737db6cac4e3@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 16:10:41 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YTgy8PdP1+9s6NBz@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4cc5b434-b174-9aae-197b-737db6cac4e3%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk


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