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

> Not sure. My original choice was to subtract 1 from the calculated
> maximum, which meant it would split just before the 2Gb limit.
>
> However, running with the value set at the lower value:
>
> 1998585856 Feb 8 02:25 /opt/db/base/test/smallcat
> 599007232 Feb 8 03:21 /opt/db/base/test/smallcat.1
>
> Total 26653000 rows loaded
>
> Would anyone really notice the lower value?
>
> Perhaps we could make this another compile time setting, like the block
> size?

I guess all I am saying is I prefer the max-1 value. Seems more
logical. Could be set in config.h.in, though.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026