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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

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


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 © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group