| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Giles Lean <giles(at)nemeton(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
| Date: | 2002-10-25 03:51:26 |
| Message-ID: | 200210250351.g9P3pQa11892@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner wrote:
>
> I just reread the patch; is it valid to assume fseek and fseeko have the
> same failure modes? Or does the call to 'fseek' actually call fseeko?
The fseek was a typo. It should have been fseeko as you suggested.
CVS updated.
Your idea of using SEEK_SET is good, except I was concerned that the
checkSeek call will move the file pointer. Is that OK? It doesn't seem
appropriate.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-25 04:07:37 | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-25 03:47:20 | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |