[HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB. 2GB is nonsense, because this is session limit of temp files, and these files should be longer than 2GB. Regards Pavel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 07/19/2012 01:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB. 2GB is nonsense, because this is session limit of temp files, and these files should be longer than 2GB. I haven't read

Re: [HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Christopher Browne
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On 07/19/2012 01:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB. 2GB is nonsense, because this is session

Re: [HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 07/19/2012 01:48 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On 07/19/2012 01:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested this patch, we found very restristrictive

Re: [HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 20/07/12 09:08, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 07/19/2012 01:48 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On 07/19/2012 01:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested

Re: [HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 20/07/12 09:58, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 20/07/12 09:08, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 07/19/2012 01:48 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On 07/19/2012 01:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: I did a backport of

Re: [HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Tom Lane
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes: I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB. 2GB is nonsense, because this is session limit of temp files, and these files should be longer than 2GB. This claim is

Re: [HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 20/07/12 12:02, Tom Lane wrote: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes: I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB. 2GB is nonsense, because this is session limit of temp files, and these files should be

Re: [HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Pavel Stehule
2012/7/20 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes: I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB. 2GB is nonsense, because this is session limit of temp files, and these files

Re: [HACKERS] 2GB limit for temp_file_limit on 32bit platform

2012-07-19 Thread Pavel Stehule
2012/7/20 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com: 2012/7/20 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes: I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we tested this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB. 2GB is nonsense, because this