On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > BTW it does not 2 gig, but 1 gig (remember that we do sortmembytes *
> > 2) .
>
> Good point. Probably that particular calculation should be
> "sortmembytes * 2.0" to force it to double before it can overflow.
> But I still think we'd better limit SortMem so that the basic
> SortMem*1024 calculation can't overflow (or even come close to overflow,
> likely).
This isn't really an issue for 64 bit hardware is it?
