On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
Committed. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
