| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: A varint implementation for PG? |
| Date: | 2021-08-04 20:38:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZrnxd81eWCOXSnAhof6WrRg2Bpqroquu04nqhEWG-YJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 3:46 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > But what if I have a machine with more than 16 exabytes of RAM and I
> > want to use all of its memory to store one really big integer?
>
> Then the embedded 8 byte length value would just have to do the same thing
> recursively to store that huge length header :)
Well, yes. But more seriously, my point is that I can't imagine why we
would need an object with a length bounded by 2^64. I mean I suppose
there's no harm in looking to the future, but that's *really big*.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-08-04 21:44:10 | Re: A varint implementation for PG? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-08-04 20:34:52 | Re: straightening out backend process startup |