Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Having said that, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble of changing.
>> The platforms where there's a difference are probably not muscular
>> enough that anyone would ever get past 16TB in a temp file anyhow.
> As things stand, a 64-bit windows installation would have any CLUSTER
> of a table that exceeds 16TiB fail, possibly pretty horribly (I
> haven't thought through the consequences much). This is made more
> likely by the fact that we've made tuplesort faster in the past few
> releases (gains which the MAX_KILOBYTES restriction won't impinge on
> too much, particularly in Postgres 10). I find that unacceptable, at
> least for Postgres 10.
[ shrug... ] If you're excited enough about it to do the work, I won't
stand in your way. But I don't find it to be a stop-ship issue.
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
