On 2/1/17 4:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-02-02 09:22:46 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote:
Speaking of which... I have a meeting in 15 minutes to discuss moving to a
server with 4TB of memory. With current limits shared buffers maxes at 16TB,
which isn't all that far in the future. While 16TB of shared buffers might
not be a good idea, it's not going to be terribly long before we start
getting questions about it.
Time for int64 GUCs?
I don't think the GUC bit is the hard part. We'd possibly need some
trickery (like not storing bufferid in BufferDesc anymore) to avoid
increasing memory usage.
Before doing that the first thing to look at would be why the limit is
currently INT_MAX / 2 instead of INT_MAX.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
