Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David Rowley
Тема Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code
Дата
Msg-id CAApHDvq8F=CY2Qqy6czn1+E9YaBPCLkhGMo7gSOep=NtaoGPFg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 16:20, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> There is a fairly widespread issue that memory-size-related GUCs and
> suchlike variables are limited to represent sizes that fit in a "long".
> Although Win64 is the *only* platform where that's an issue, maybe
> it's worth doing something about.  But we shouldn't just fix the sort
> code, if we do do something.
>
> (IOW, I don't agree with doing a fix that doesn't also fix work_mem.)

I raised it mostly because this new-to-PG13-code is making the problem worse.

If we're not going to change the in-memory fields, then shouldn't we
at least change the ones for disk space tracking?

David



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Ashutosh Bapat
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching
Следующее
От: John Naylor
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals