On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > BTW it does not 2 gig, but 1 gig (remember that we do sortmembytes * > > 2) . > > Good point. Probably that particular calculation should be > "sortmembytes * 2.0" to force it to double before it can overflow. > But I still think we'd better limit SortMem so that the basic > SortMem*1024 calculation can't overflow (or even come close to overflow, > likely).
This isn't really an issue for 64 bit hardware is it? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
