Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
Date: 2002-10-01 15:20:44
Message-ID: 200210011520.g91FKif18276@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > Is it my imagination, or is there a problem with the way pg_dump uses off_t
> > etc. My understanding is that off_t may be 64 bits on systems with 32 bit
> > ints. But it looks like pg_dump writes them as 4 byte values in all cases.
> > It also reads them as 4 byte values. Does this seem like a problem to
> > anybody else?
>
> Yes, it does --- the implication is that the custom format, at least,
> can't support dumps > 4Gb. What exactly is pg_dump writing off_t's
> into files for; maybe there's not really a problem?
>
> If there is a problem, seems like we'd better fix it. Perhaps there
> needs to be something in the header to tell the reader the sizeof
> off_t.

BSD/OS has 64-bit off_t's so it does support large files. Is there
something I can test?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tim Knowles 2002-10-01 15:36:09 Re: Postgresql likes Tuesday...
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-01 15:17:16 Re: 7.2.3 patching done