On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 12:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:11:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
When I wrote the dynamic shared
On 2013-11-04 10:46:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 12:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:11:41PM -0400,
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Ah. This is because I didn't change the format code used to print the
arguments; it's still using UINT64_FORMAT, but the argument is now a
Size. What's the right way to print out a Size, anyway?
There isn't a nice
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 12:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:11:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
When I wrote the dynamic shared memory patch, I used uint64 everywhere
to measure sizes - rather than, as
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:11:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
When I wrote the dynamic shared memory patch, I used uint64 everywhere
to measure sizes - rather than, as we do for the main shared memory
segment, Size. This now
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:11:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
When I wrote the dynamic shared memory patch, I used uint64 everywhere
to measure sizes - rather than, as we do for the main shared memory
segment, Size. This now seems to me to have been the wrong decision;
I'm finding that it's
When I wrote the dynamic shared memory patch, I used uint64 everywhere
to measure sizes - rather than, as we do for the main shared memory
segment, Size. This now seems to me to have been the wrong decision;
I'm finding that it's advantageous to make dynamic shared memory
behave as much like the
