Re: [PATCHES] Fix for large file support

If we expose LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE, should we add a flag to the
control file so that you can't start a backend that has that defined
against a cluster that was initialized without it?

On Apr 6, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> [ redirecting to -hackers for wider comment ]
>
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE is good way. I think one problem of this
>> option I
>> fixed. It is size of offset. I went thru the code and did not see any
>> other problem there. However, how you mentioned it need more
>> testing. I
>> going to take server with large disk array and I will test it.
>
>> I would like to add --enable-largefile switch to configure file to
>> enable access to wide group of users. What you think about it?
>
> Yeah, I was going to suggest the same thing --- but not with that
> switch
> name. We already use enable/disable-largefile to control whether
> 64-bit
> file access is built at all (this mostly affects pg_dump at the
> moment).
>
> I think the clearest way might be to flip the sense of the variable.
> I never found "LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE" to be a good name anyway. I'd
> suggest "USE_SEGMENTED_FILES", which defaults to "on", and you can
> turn it off via --disable-segmented-files if configure confirms your
> OS has largefile support (thus you could not specify both this and
> --disable-largefile).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)