Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-07-23 17:15:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's because they spill to disk where they did not before.  The easy
>> answer of "raise hash_mem_multiplier" doesn't help, because on Windows
>> the product of work_mem and hash_mem_multiplier is clamped to 2GB,
>> thanks to the ancient decision to do a lot of memory-space-related
>> calculations in "long int", which is only 32 bits on Win64.

> We really ought to just remove every single use of long.

I have no objection to that as a long-term goal.  But I'm not volunteering
to do all the work, and in any case it wouldn't be a back-patchable fix.