Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB
Date: 2025-11-06 22:13:33
Message-ID: aQ0djavBB5G4QMbS@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 12:45:30PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> Could we add a testcase that actually exercises at least some of the
> codepaths? We presumably wouldn't want to actually write that much data, but
> it shouldn't be hard to write portable code to create a file with holes...

With something that relies on a pg_pwrite() and pg_pread(), that does
not sound like an issue to me.

FWIW, I have wanted a test module that does FS-level operations for
some time. Here, we could just have thin wrappers of the write and
read calls and a give way for the tests to pass directly arguments to
them via a SQL function call. That would be easier to extend
depending on what comes next. Not sure that this is absolutely
mandatory for the sake of the proposal, though, but long-term that's
something we should do more to stress the portability of the code.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2025-11-06 22:20:46 Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB
Previous Message Manni Wood 2025-11-06 22:08:11 Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_tablespace_ddl() function to reconstruct CREATE TABLESPACE statement