| 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 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-31 01:24:47 | Re: 64-bit integers for GUC |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2006-07-31 00:38:30 | Re: [HACKERS] extension for sql update |