Subject: Re: go for a script! / ex:  PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
To: PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <pupth43wgd.fsf@srv.protecting.net>
References: <007901c38f2b$0b585590$2802a8c0@webbased10>
	<200310101034.52073.josh@agliodbs.com> <3F86F5BB.90605@chuckie.co.uk>
	<x7wubcon3h.fsf@yertle.int.kciLink.com>
	<20031010225924.GC8664@perrin.nxad.com>
	<1065837333.12875.1.camel@jester>
	<pupth43wgd.fsf@srv.protecting.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1065869007.24193.45.camel@haggis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 05:43:27 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 05:22, Harald Fuchs wrote:
> In article <1065837333.12875.1.camel@jester>,
> Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> writes:
> 
> >> Would anyone object to a patch that exports the blocksize via a
> >> readonly GUC?  Too many tunables are page dependant, which is
> >> infuriating when copying configs from DB to DB.  I wish pgsql had some
> >> notion of percentages for values that end with a '%'.
> 
> > Rather than showing the block size, how about we change the tunables to
> > be physical sizes rather than block based?
> 
> >         effective_cache_size = 1.5GB
> >         shared_buffers = 25MB
> 
> Amen!  Being forced to set config values in some obscure units rather
> than bytes is an ugly braindamage which should be easy to fix.

But it's too user-friendly to do it this way!

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA

When Swedes start committing terrorism, I'll become suspicious of
Scandanavians.