On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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.
Committed.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao