On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 18 June 2013 17:10, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> 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? Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
