| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "long" type is not appropriate for counting tuples |
| Date: | 2019-04-29 17:56:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzn90Vmpa0fVmerShyTdjCESChrLABRM9+agaAq+pM8taw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> There's more to that than you might realize. For example, guc.c
> enforces a limit on work_mem that's designed to ensure that
> expressions like "work_mem * 1024L" won't overflow, and there are
> similar choices elsewhere.
I was aware of that, but I wasn't aware of how many places that bleeds
into until I checked just now.
It would be nice if we could figure out how to make it obvious that
the idioms around the use of long for work_mem stuff are idioms that
have a specific rationale. It's pretty confusing as things stand.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-29 18:10:24 | Re: "long" type is not appropriate for counting tuples |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-04-29 17:52:19 | Re: "long" type is not appropriate for counting tuples |