Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development"(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
Date: 1999-06-17 15:05:18
Message-ID: 4110.929631918@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>>> Config.h has this. Does this need to be updated because we can't vacuum
>>>> multi-segment relations? I have changed it to 7F000000:
>>
>> Why? I thought we'd fixed the mdtruncate issue.

> I am told we did not by Hiroshi. It was news to me too.

Then we'd better fix the underlying problem. We can't change
RELSEG_SIZE for a minor release, unless you want to give up the
principle of not forcing initdb at minor releases.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-17 15:06:28 Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-17 15:00:02 Re: [HACKERS] (don't know who else to tell) 6.5 gets build on LinuxPPCR5 but fails a lot of regr. tests