Thread: RE: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0

I reposted the patch from home yesterday, as bruce pointed it out in
another thread.

Peter

--
Peter T Mount, IT Section
petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk
Anything I write here are my own views, and cannot be taken as the
official words of Maidstone Borough Council

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 5:52 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 


Say guys,

I just noticed that RELSEG_SIZE still hasn't been reduced per the
discussion from early February.  Let's make sure that doesn't slip
through the cracks, OK?

I think Peter Mount was supposed to be off testing this issue.
Peter, did you learn anything further?

We should probably apply the patch to REL6_4 as well...
        regards, tom lane

Just a question. Does your patch let vacuum handle segmented tables?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

>I reposted the patch from home yesterday, as bruce pointed it out in
>another thread.
>
>Peter
>
>--
>Peter T Mount, IT Section
>petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk
>Anything I write here are my own views, and cannot be taken as the
>official words of Maidstone Borough Council
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 5:52 PM
>To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 
>
>
>Say guys,
>
>I just noticed that RELSEG_SIZE still hasn't been reduced per the
>discussion from early February.  Let's make sure that doesn't slip
>through the cracks, OK?
>
>I think Peter Mount was supposed to be off testing this issue.
>Peter, did you learn anything further?
>
>We should probably apply the patch to REL6_4 as well...
>
>            regards, tom lane
>