Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I've often thought that 64-bit machines are so capable that there's no > reason to go any higher. But lately I've started to wonder. There > are already machines out there with >2^40 bytes of physical memory, > and the number just keeps creeping up. When you reserve a couple of > bits to indicate user or kernel space, and then consider that virtual > address space can be many times larger than physical memory, it starts > not to seem like that much.
> But I'm not that excited about the amount of additional memory we'll > eat when somebody decides to make a pointer 16 bytes. Ugh. Once you really need that, you're not going to care about doubling the size of pointers. At worst, you're giving up 1 bit of address space to gain 64 more. (Still, I rather doubt it'll happen in my lifetime.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers