From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes |
Date: | 2021-07-25 01:39:34 |
Message-ID: | 20210725013934.GA20990@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 06:25:53PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > That's because they spill to disk where they did not before. The easy
> > answer of "raise hash_mem_multiplier" doesn't help, because on Windows
> > the product of work_mem and hash_mem_multiplier is clamped to 2GB,
> > thanks to the ancient decision to do a lot of memory-space-related
> > calculations in "long int", which is only 32 bits on Win64.
>
> We really ought to just remove every single use of long. As Thomas
> quipped on twitter at some point, "long is the asbestos of C". I think
> we've incurred far more cost due to weird workarounds to deal with the
> difference in long width between windows and everything else, than just
> removing all use of it outright would incur.
+1
As I understand it, making long of undermined length was to allow
someone to choose a data type that _might_ be longer than int if the
compiler/OS/CPU was optimized for that, but at this point, such
optimizations just don't seem to make sense, and we know every(?) CPU
supports long-long, so why not go for something concrete? Do we really
want our feature limits to be determined by whether we have an optimized
type longer than int?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-07-25 03:10:07 | Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-07-25 01:25:53 | Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes |