Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code

On 2020-06-30 06:24, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 16:20, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There is a fairly widespread issue that memory-size-related GUCs and
>> suchlike variables are limited to represent sizes that fit in a "long".
>> Although Win64 is the *only* platform where that's an issue, maybe
>> it's worth doing something about.  But we shouldn't just fix the sort
>> code, if we do do something.
>>
>> (IOW, I don't agree with doing a fix that doesn't also fix work_mem.)
> 
> I raised it mostly because this new-to-PG13-code is making the problem worse.

Yeah, we recently got rid of a bunch of inappropriate use of long, so it 
seems reasonable to make this new code follow that.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services