On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 18 June 2013 22:57, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 18 June 2013 17:10, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Simon Rig
On 18 June 2013 22:57, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 18 June 2013 17:10, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> I worked up a small patch to support
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 18 June 2013 17:10, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Simon Riggs wrote:
I worked up a small patch to support Terabyte setting for memory.
Which is OK, but
On 06/18/2013 10:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Thanks. Please delete the patch marked "Batch API for After Triggers".
> All others are submissions by me.
The CF app doesn't permit deletion of patches, so I marked it "returned
with feedback".
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts
On 18 June 2013 18:45, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> In truth, I hadn't realised somebody had added this to the CF. It was
>> meant to be an exploration and demonstration that further work was/is
>> required rather than a production quality submission. AFAICS it is
>> still limited to '1 TB' only...
>
>
* Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> Well, I think that someone needs to actually test doing a sort with,
> say, 100GB of RAM and make sure it doesn't crash. Anyone have a machine
> they can try that on?
It can be valuable to bump up work_mem well beyond the amount of system
memory actually
> In truth, I hadn't realised somebody had added this to the CF. It was
> meant to be an exploration and demonstration that further work was/is
> required rather than a production quality submission. AFAICS it is
> still limited to '1 TB' only...
At the beginning of the CF, I do a sweep of patch
On 18 June 2013 17:10, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> I worked up a small patch to support Terabyte setting for memory.
>>> Which is OK, but it only works for 1TB, not for 2TB or above.
>>
>>
>> I've
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> I worked up a small patch to support Terabyte setting for memory.
>> Which is OK, but it only works for 1TB, not for 2TB or above.
>
>
> I've incorporated my review into a new version, attached.
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I worked up a small patch to support Terabyte setting for memory.
> Which is OK, but it only works for 1TB, not for 2TB or above.
>
I've incorporated my review into a new version, attached.
Added "TB" to the docs, added the macro KB_PER_TB, and made
On 22/05/13 09:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
I worked up a small patch to support Terabyte setting for memory.
Which is OK, but it only works for 1TB, not for 2TB or above.
Which highlights that since we measure things in kB, we have an
inherent limit of 2047GB for our memory settings. It isn't beyond
I worked up a small patch to support Terabyte setting for memory.
Which is OK, but it only works for 1TB, not for 2TB or above.
Which highlights that since we measure things in kB, we have an
inherent limit of 2047GB for our memory settings. It isn't beyond
belief we'll want to go that high, or at
12 matches
Mail list logo
