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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB
Date: 2025-12-02 03:05:52
Message-ID: rwhdaxlspkwwoya5zrbladp2hjfzfv6jgfxszfpcas5aam4bva@an6ppsumqe66
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2025-12-02 12:02:39 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 09:59:52PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2025-12-02 11:46:56 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> I doubt that we can drop this check yet. There are still a lot of
> >> places in the tree that need to be switched from off_t to pgoff_t,
> >> like the buffer APIs, etc.
> >
> > Hm? What are you thinking about re buffer APIs?
>
> buffile.h and buffile.c still have traces of off_t.

Oh, I was interpreting buffer as bufmgr.c...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xuneng Zhou 2025-12-02 03:08:01 Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2025-12-02 03:02:39 Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB