| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform |
| Date: | 2012-07-19 20:48:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAFNqd5UW9-gEDz8dqpa5m+1n=--ELaj+WEDXZK595YYMwML3RA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 07/19/2012 01:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested
>> this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB.
>>
>> 2GB is nonsense, because this is session limit of temp files, and
>> these files should be longer than 2GB.
>
>
> I haven't read the patch but... don't all 32bit platforms have a 2GB limit
> (by default)?
I don't think so.
LFS got done in the mid-90s, which is long enough ago for people to
start forgetting about it. Are there any supported platforms that
didn't adopt LFS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_file_support
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Crews | 2012-07-19 20:56:48 | postgres 9 bind address for replication |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2012-07-19 20:29:39 | Re: 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform |