| From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: patch review : Add ability to constrain backend temporary file space |
| Date: | 2011-06-02 22:25:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4DE80DF5.1030203@catalyst.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/06/11 02:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> So I'm not sure work_disk is a great name.
> I agree. Maybe something along the lines of "temp_file_limit"?
>
> Also, once you free yourself from the analogy to work_mem, you could
> adopt some more natural unit than KB. I'd think MB would be a practical
> unit size, and would avoid (at least for the near term) the need to make
> the parameter a float.
>
I agree, and I like your name suggestion (and also agree with Robert
that 'work_mem' was not such a great name).
I'd be quite happy to use MB (checks guc.h) but looks like we don't have
a GUC_UNIT_MB, not sure if adding it would be an issue (suggests on a
suitable mask if people think it is a great idea).
Cheers
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-02 22:56:02 | Re: Domains versus polymorphic functions, redux |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-02 22:15:24 | Re: 9.2 branch and 9.1beta2 timing (was Re: InitProcGlobal cleanup) |