| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
| Date: | 2002-10-01 13:59:52 |
| Message-ID: | 21429.1033480792@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mario Weilguni | 2002-10-01 14:17:01 | floor function in 7.3b2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-01 13:51:12 | Re: Postgresql likes Tuesday... |