SEO
vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
04-12-2008, 06:02 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 Re: effective_cache_size vs units Magnus Hagander wrote: > Is there any special reason why I can't use "Mb" and "Gb" and such > for effective_cache_size, the way I can for say shared_buffers? You can't use "Mb" or "Gb" for shared_buffers either, because those are not accepted units. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings      |
|
04-12-2008, 06:02 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: effective_cache_size vs units On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 22:08 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Is there any special reason why I can't use "Mb" and "Gb" and such > > for effective_cache_size, the way I can for say shared_buffers? > > You can't use "Mb" or "Gb" for shared_buffers either, because those are > not accepted units. Magnus, Here is a link that may help: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/s...g-setting.html It looks like it is very pedantic about the input it can receive. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings |
Linear Mode
