Re: 64-bit integers for GUC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: 64-bit integers for GUC
Date
Msg-id 200607251438.17233.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to 64-bit integers for GUC  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: 64-bit integers for GUC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: 64-bit integers for GUC  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 14:15 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > ISTM that before long someone will want to use more than 2 GB for
> > work_mem. Currently, you can't set more because it overflows the
> > variable.
>
> Yes you can, because the value is measured in KB.

Right, so there is probably a bug in my patch ...  Nevermind then.  All the 
other options are OK with 32 bit ints.

> I'd be fairly worried about whether that wouldn't mean we fail
> completely on INT64_IS_BROKEN platforms ...

I wonder whether platforms with INT64_IS_BROKEN can address more than 2GB of 
memory anyway.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gevik Babakhani
Date:
Subject: Re: root/administartor user check option.
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation