| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>, PostgresSQL General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS |
| Date: | 2002-08-13 17:04:02 |
| Message-ID: | 27296.1029258242@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> But large file support is not really an issue for the database itself,
> since table files are split at 1Gb. Unless that changes, the database
> is not a problem.
I see no really good reason to change the file-split logic. The places
where the backend might possibly need large-file support are
* backend-side COPY to or from a large file
* postmaster log to stderr --- does this fail if log output
exceeds 2G?
There might be some other similar issues, but that's all that comes to
mind offhand.
On a system where building with large-file support is reasonably
standard, I agree that PG should be built that way too. Where it's
not so standard, I agree with Andrew Sullivan's concerns ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-08-13 17:10:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS |
| Previous Message | Oliver Elphick | 2002-08-13 16:50:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-08-13 17:10:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2002-08-13 17:00:14 | Re: db partial dumping with pg_dump |