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

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Giles Lean <giles(at)nemeton(dot)com(dot)au>
Subject: Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
Date: 2002-10-23 02:39:23
Message-ID: 5.1.0.14.0.20021023123156.0281b498@mail.rhyme.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 05:37 PM 22/10/2002 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>! if (ctx->hasSeek
>! #if !defined(HAVE_FSEEKO)
>! && sizeof(off_t) <= sizeof(long)
>! #endif
>! )

Just to clarify my understanding:

- HAVE_FSEEKO is tested & defined in configure
- If it is not defined, then all calls to fseeko will magically be
translated to fseek calls, and use the 'long' parameter type.

Is that right?

If so, why don't we:

#if defined(HAVE_FSEEKO)
#define FILE_OFFSET off_t
#define FSEEK fseeko
#else
#define FILE_OFFSET long
#define FSEEK fseek
#end if

then replace all refs to off_t with FILE_OFFSET, and fseeko with FSEEK.

Existing checks etc will then refuse to load file offsets with significant
bytes after the 4th byte, we will still use fseek/o in broken OS
implementations of off_t.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-23 02:46:17 Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-23 02:38:31 Re: Thinking about IN/EXISTS optimization