On 18 June 2013 22:57, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 18 June 2013 17:10, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Simon Riggs wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I worked up a small patch to support Terabyte setting for memory. >>>>> Which is OK, but it only works for 1TB, not for 2TB or above. >>>> >>>> >>>> I've incorporated my review into a new version, attached. >>>> >>>> Added "TB" to the docs, added the macro KB_PER_TB, and made "show" to print >>>> "1TB" rather than "1024GB". >>> >>> Looks good to me. But I found you forgot to change postgresql.conf.sample, >>> so I changed it and attached the updated version of the patch. >>> >>> Barring any objection to this patch and if no one picks up this, I >>> will commit this. >> >> In truth, I hadn't realised somebody had added this to the CF. It was >> meant to be an exploration and demonstration that further work was/is >> required rather than a production quality submission. AFAICS it is >> still limited to '1 TB' only... > > Yes. > >> Thank you both for adding to this patch. Since you've done that, it >> seems churlish of me to interrupt that commit. > > I was thinking that this is the infrastructure patch for your future > proposal, i.e., support higher values of TBs. But if it interferes with > your future proposal, of course I'm okay to drop this patch. Thought?
Yes, please commit. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
