| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 64-bit API for large object |
| Date: | 2012-08-29 03:11:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa-VXU4OATs2cDsaWf2n_tTxLbXhT9Orpo1_8Hz+2G=Ng@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>> pg_largeobject.pageno is a signed int, so I don't think we can let it go
>> past 2^31-1, so half that.
>>
>> We could buy back the other bit if we redefined the column as oid
>> instead of int4 (to make it unsigned), but I think that would create
>> fairly considerable risk of confusion between the loid and pageno
>> columns (loid already being oid). I'd just as soon not go there,
>> at least not till we start seeing actual field complaints about
>> 4TB being paltry ;-)
>
> Agreed. 4TB should be enough.
...for anybody!
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-08-29 03:16:47 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-29 03:08:45 | Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points |