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

Re: Large objects.

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large objects.
Date: 2010-09-26 16:14:38
Message-ID: AANLkTimygJfJRHjEa1bGMwkU-oPGMqdX62FWCSQcCXO6@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Tell me please, why lo_write() returns me the number of bytes "actually
> written"
> when current write location is out of 2GB ? IMO, in this case it should
> returns
> at least zero.
> lo_read() returns zero in this case, and it is correct, IMO.

Hmm, are you sure?  If the behavior of lo_read and lo_write is not
symmetric, that's probably not good, but I don't see anything obvious
in the code to make me think that's the case.  Returning 0 for a value
>= 2^31 seems problematic unless there is no possibility of a short
read (or write).

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-09-26 16:16:09
Subject: Re: C function to return tuple
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-09-26 16:08:38
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Still more tweaking of git_changelog.

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