Re: 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 500882FB.1090402@catalyst.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 20/07/12 09:08, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 07/19/2012 01:48 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake >> <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 07/19/2012 01:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>>> >>>> I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested >>>> this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB. >>>> >>>> 2GB is nonsense, because this is session limit of temp files, and >>>> these files should be longer than 2GB. >>> >>> >>> I haven't read the patch but... don't all 32bit platforms have a 2GB >>> limit >>> (by default)? >> >> I don't think so. >> >> LFS got done in the mid-90s, which is long enough ago for people to >> start forgetting about it. Are there any supported platforms that >> didn't adopt LFS? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_file_support > > Note: "by default" :). I know they could support LFS but as I recall > you had to compile specifically for it (at least on linux and old > versions of pg). > > So I was curious if it was that specific limitation or a limitation > within the Pg code itself. > > It is to do with the datatype of the GUC used for the setting - I haven't got the patch in from of me to look at, but recall that going larger meant using a float type which meant you couldn't get nice units displayed (MB, GB etc). I'll take a proper look later. Cheers Mark
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: