Re: effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1wiW1t+a2u+kvTPqm-OiPRYsBjM8QBVnjj2w7x7bAPEfA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
>> > commit 1aba62ec made zero be an illegal value for effective_io_concurrency.
>> > i think this was an accident.  If not, then the sample postgresql.conf
>> > (at least) needs to be updated.
>>
>> It looks like the problem is that the new range check
>>
>> +   /* This range check shouldn't fail, but let's be paranoid */
>> +   return (new_prefetch_pages > 0.0 && new_prefetch_pages < (double) INT_MAX);
>>
>> should be testing for >= 0.0 not > 0.0.
>
> Hmm, yeah, it looks like that's it.  Will fix.
>


Thanks, works as expected now.

Cheers,

Jeff



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow COPY to use parameters
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?