Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 13346.1488131323@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long? (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Having said that, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble of changing. >> The platforms where there's a difference are probably not muscular >> enough that anyone would ever get past 16TB in a temp file anyhow. > As things stand, a 64-bit windows installation would have any CLUSTER > of a table that exceeds 16TiB fail, possibly pretty horribly (I > haven't thought through the consequences much). This is made more > likely by the fact that we've made tuplesort faster in the past few > releases (gains which the MAX_KILOBYTES restriction won't impinge on > too much, particularly in Postgres 10). I find that unacceptable, at > least for Postgres 10. [ shrug... ] If you're excited enough about it to do the work, I won't stand in your way. But I don't find it to be a stop-ship issue. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: