Re: Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Date: 2017-02-26 17:48:43
Message-ID: 13346.1488131323@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Having said that, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble of changing.
>> The platforms where there's a difference are probably not muscular
>> enough that anyone would ever get past 16TB in a temp file anyhow.

> As things stand, a 64-bit windows installation would have any CLUSTER
> of a table that exceeds 16TiB fail, possibly pretty horribly (I
> haven't thought through the consequences much). This is made more
> likely by the fact that we've made tuplesort faster in the past few
> releases (gains which the MAX_KILOBYTES restriction won't impinge on
> too much, particularly in Postgres 10). I find that unacceptable, at
> least for Postgres 10.

[ shrug... ] If you're excited enough about it to do the work, I won't
stand in your way. But I don't find it to be a stop-ship issue.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-02-26 18:04:20 Re: Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-02-26 17:45:05 Re: Instability in select_parallel regression test