Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Oops - BF:Mastodon just died
Date: 2008-01-31 16:07:03
Message-ID: 8648.1201795623@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It strikes me that the pattern needs to be {3,} or maybe just +.
>> I dunno what this column is measuring, but if we are past 0xA00
>> then surely 0x1000 is not far away.

> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b842y285(VS.71).aspx appears to 
> suggest that the size of the field is fixed.

That would imply that dumpbin fails at 4096 symbols per file.  While I
surely wouldn't put it past M$ to have put in such a limitation, I think
it's more likely that the documentation is badly written.

In any case it would be easy enough to make up a quick test to see what
happens with say

	void func1() {}
	void func2() {}
	...
	void func5000() {}


			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-01-31 16:08:38
Subject: Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2008-01-31 16:02:03
Subject: Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group