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

From Robert Treat
Subject Re: 64-bit integers for GUC
Date
Msg-id 200607302110.46111.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 64-bit integers for GUC  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: 64-bit integers for GUC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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
> AFAIK.
>

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] extension for sql update
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 64-bit integers for GUC