| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 64-bit integers for GUC |
| Date: | 2006-07-25 12:38:16 |
| Message-ID: | 200607251438.17233.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 14:15 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > ISTM that before long someone will want to use more than 2 GB for
> > work_mem. Currently, you can't set more because it overflows the
> > variable.
>
> Yes you can, because the value is measured in KB.
Right, so there is probably a bug in my patch ... Nevermind then. All the
other options are OK with 32 bit ints.
> I'd be fairly worried about whether that wouldn't mean we fail
> completely on INT64_IS_BROKEN platforms ...
I wonder whether platforms with INT64_IS_BROKEN can address more than 2GB of
memory anyway.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bort, Paul | 2006-07-25 12:38:21 | Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation |
| Previous Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2006-07-25 12:36:08 | Re: root/administartor user check option. |