On 18 June 2013 22:57, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2013 17:10, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I worked up a small patch to support Terabyte setting for memory.
>>>>> Which is OK, but it only works for 1TB, not for 2TB or above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've incorporated my review into a new version, attached.
>>>>
>>>> Added "TB" to the docs, added the macro KB_PER_TB, and made "show" to print
>>>> "1TB" rather than "1024GB".
>>>
>>> Looks good to me. But I found you forgot to change postgresql.conf.sample,
>>> so I changed it and attached the updated version of the patch.
>>>
>>> Barring any objection to this patch and if no one picks up this, I
>>> will commit this.
>>
>> In truth, I hadn't realised somebody had added this to the CF. It was
>> meant to be an exploration and demonstration that further work was/is
>> required rather than a production quality submission. AFAICS it is
>> still limited to '1 TB' only...
>
> Yes.
>
>> Thank you both for adding to this patch. Since you've done that, it
>> seems churlish of me to interrupt that commit.
>
> I was thinking that this is the infrastructure patch for your future
> proposal, i.e., support higher values of TBs. But if it interferes with
> your future proposal, of course I'm okay to drop this patch. Thought?
Yes, please commit.
--Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services