Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ranier Vilela
Subject Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes
Date
Msg-id CAEudQApp_3zV+Twq6NiF3bJx3ZoktM=XyK1Q+Mfc17pY3xdxEA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Em dom., 25 de jul. de 2021 às 13:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-07-23 17:15:24 -0400, Tom Lane 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.

I have no objection to that as a long-term goal.  But I'm not volunteering
to do all the work, and in any case it wouldn't be a back-patchable fix.
I'm a volunteer, if you want to work together.
I think int64 is in most cases the counterpart of *long* on Windows.

regards,
Ranier Vilela

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)