Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 64-bit integers for GUC

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: 64-bit integers for GUC
Date: 2006-07-31 01:10:45
Message-ID: 200607302110.46111.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 14:28, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Peter,
>
> > I wonder whether platforms with INT64_IS_BROKEN can address more than 2GB
> > of memory anyway.
>
> To be quite frank, current PostgreSQL can't effectively use more than
> 256mb of work_mem anyway.  We'd like to fix that, but it's not fixed yet
> AFAIK.
>

Josh, can you clarify this statement for me? Using work mem of higher than 
256MB is common practice in certain cases (db restore for example).  Are you 
speaking in a high volume OLTP sense, or something beyond this?

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-31 01:24:47
Subject: Re: 64-bit integers for GUC
Previous:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2006-07-31 00:38:30
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] extension for sql update

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group