Koichi Suzuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support. There're just
two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and transaction ID.
I've applied the part of this that seemed reasonably noncontroversial,
namely the fixes to do shared memory size
Mark,
I've not seen CVS in detail. I begain this work against 8.0.1 and
continued thru 8.0.2 to 8.0.3. It was not a great work. The patch is
rather straightforward and I appreciate if you try to port against CVS.
Mark Wong wrote:
Hi,
I grabbed the patches to try, but I was wondering
I asked originally for some experimental evidence showing any value
in having more than 2Gb of shared buffers. In the absence of any
convincing demonstration, I'm not very inclined to worry about whether
we can handle wider-than-int shared memory size.
Hi,
Attached is a result of pgbench
Hi,
Attached is a result of pgbench with 64bit patch PostgreSQL (base is
8.0.1). Benchmark machine is dual opteron (1.4GHz, 1MB cache each) with
8GB of memory and 120GB of IDE hard disk.
Koichi Suzuki wrote:
I have some experimeltal data about this extension. I will gather it
and post
Hi all,
Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support. There're just
two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and transaction ID.
Please take a look at overview.txt for this proposal and pathces, based
upon 8.0.3.
Any discussions are welcome
Hi, all,
I have posted a couple of patches with regard to 64bit environment
support to PATCHES ml. It expands size of shared memory to 64bit space
and extends XID to 64bit. Please take a look at it.
--
---
Koichi Suzuki
Open Source Engineeering
Koichi Suzuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support. There're just
two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and transaction ID.
I asked originally for some experimental evidence showing any value
in having more than 2Gb of shared buffers
Tom Lane wrote:
Koichi Suzuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support. There're just
two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and transaction ID.
I asked originally for some experimental evidence showing any value
in having more than 2Gb
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is some practical evidence. Recently the number of large boxes in
the field is almost growing exponentially. Today I have heard somebody
say this box has 'just 4 gig of ram' .
On large installations we have already seen
Tom Lane wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is some practical evidence. Recently the number of large boxes in
the field is almost growing exponentially. Today I have heard somebody
say this box has 'just 4 gig of ram' .
On large installations we
I have some experimeltal data about this extension. I will gather it
and post hopefully this weekend.
Tom Lane wrote:
Koichi Suzuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support. There're just
two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and transaction
Hans-J|rgen Schvnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
64-bit XIDs seem to be an overkill - the only practical impact I can see
is an even larger tuple header (this can be an issue on large boxes too
- at least compared to Oracle).
I agreed, too. The changes of XIDs cannot be ignored because the
12 matches
Mail list logo
