Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: gjerde(at)icebox(dot)org, Pgsql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0
Date: 1999-02-08 00:06:35
Message-ID: 13345.918432395@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
>> I just did a checkout of the cvs code, hardcoded RELSEG_SIZE to 243968,
>> and it works beautifully now!

> Problem here is that RELSEG_SIZE is dependent on the block size. Seeing we
> can increase the block size from 8k, this would break.

Of course it should really be defined as

#define RELSEG_SIZE (2000000000 / BLCKSZ)

for some suitable magic constant.

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 1999-02-08 00:14:00 Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0
Previous Message Peter T Mount 1999-02-07 23:43:53 RE: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0