| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 64-bit integers for GUC |
| Date: | 2006-07-25 12:44:11 |
| Message-ID: | 8568.1153831451@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 14:15 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> I'd be fairly worried about whether that wouldn't mean we fail
>> completely on INT64_IS_BROKEN platforms ...
> I wonder whether platforms with INT64_IS_BROKEN can address more than 2GB of
> memory anyway.
No, surely they can't (on all machines we support, "long" is at least as
wide as a pointer, cf Datum). I'm just worried about whether normal GUC
behavior would work at all on such a machine. We've so far tried to
preserve "it works as long as you don't try to use values larger than
2G" on such machines, and I'm not quite prepared to give that up.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2006-07-25 13:42:09 | Re: root/administartor user check option. |
| Previous Message | Bort, Paul | 2006-07-25 12:38:21 | Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation |