Re: Memory Accounting - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Memory Accounting
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzm8Nh7Ky-OpoNYQLAg3VGjkxqjeKfnKroQ=Ppk6STvuyg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Memory Accounting  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Memory Accounting  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:32 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> The patch has been floating around for a very long time, so I don't
> remember exactly why I chose a signed value. Sorry.

I am reminded of the fact that int64 is used to size buffers within
tuplesort.c, because it needs to support negative availMem sizes --
when huge allocations were first supported, tuplesort.c briefly used
"Size", which didn't work. Perhaps it had something to do with that.

--
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory Accounting
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory Accounting