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 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 "show" to print
"1TB" rather than "1024GB".
Looks good to me. But I found you forgot to change postgresql.conf.sample,
so I changed it and attached the updated version of the patch.

Barring any objection to this patch and if no one picks up this, I
will commit this.
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... Yes.
Thank you both for adding to this patch. Since you've done that, it
seems churlish of me to interrupt that commit.
I was thinking that this is the infrastructure patch for your future
proposal, i.e., support higher values of TBs. But if it interferes with
your future proposal, of course I'm okay to drop this patch. Thought?
Yes, please commit.


Fujii Masao

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 12 of 12 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
postedMay 21, '13 at 9:14p
activeJun 19, '13 at 11:18p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase