| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Soumyadeep Chakraborty <sochakraborty(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Memory Accounting |
| Date: | 2019-10-04 18:58:49 |
| Message-ID: | 10470.1570215529@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:32 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> The patch has been floating around for a very long time, so I don't
>> remember exactly why I chose a signed value. Sorry.
> I am reminded of the fact that int64 is used to size buffers within
> tuplesort.c, because it needs to support negative availMem sizes --
> when huge allocations were first supported, tuplesort.c briefly used
> "Size", which didn't work. Perhaps it had something to do with that.
I wonder if we should make that use ssize_t instead. Probably
not worth the trouble.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-10-04 19:04:34 | Re: Problem with repalloc downsizing patch |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-10-04 18:43:06 | Re: Memory Accounting |