Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:19:17PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After reviewing the proposed patch, I find it hard to believe that the
>> patch would have fixed any such problem ---
> It's not the key (key_t) that is the problem, but the size, which
> used to be int but got replaced by a size_t.
I don't see a problem there either. We don't create shmem segments
larger than 2Gb (and if we wanted to do so, this patch certainly
isn't enough to get it done --- all the arithmetic for shmem sizing
is int).
regards, tom lane