| From: | Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 |
| Date: | 1999-02-08 19:16:57 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.04.9902081915250.19320-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 wrote:
> > Anyhow, I'm about to start the test, using RELSEG_SIZE set to
> 243968 which
> > works out to be 1.6Gb. That should stay well away from the
> overflow problem.
>
> How about using 1 Gb. A lot of Unices have the ulimit set to 1 Gb by
> default.
> It would also be nice for the looks, easy to calculate size, nicer to
> storage managers,
> etc ....
Could be an idea.
How about making it a compile time option (like the blocksize), defaulting
to 1Gb?
Peter
--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter T Mount | 1999-02-08 19:19:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 1999-02-08 18:53:55 | Re: [HACKERS] DEC OSF1 Compilation problems |