Hi Magnus-san.
Great!!
Although not tested yet, I seem to equip it with the tolerance to 32GB.?
P.S)
In Japan, there is a user who is employing 300GB of database on Windows2003.
I have received some problems other than this. however, this user does not permit
public presentation of the information.... Then, I have asked that the information is
exhibited. ..There is no still good reply.
Regards,
Hiroshi Saito
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 05:30:48PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 04:58:22PM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > MinGW has fseeko64 and ftello64 with off64_t.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Maybe we need separate macros for MSVC and MinGW. Given the other
>> > > >
>> > > > You mean something quick and dirty like this ? That would work.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, except does that actually work? If so you found the place in the
>> > > headers to stick it without breaking things that I couldn't find ;-)
>> >
>> > Compiles clean without warnings on MinGW, but not tested, sorry also no
>> > time.
>>
>> Does not compile on my MinGW - errors in the system headers (unistd.h,
>> io.h) due to changing the argument format for chsize(). The change of
>> off_t propagated into parts of the system headers, thus chaos was
>> ensured.
>>
>> I still think we need to use a pgoff_t. Will look at combining these two
>> approaches.
>
> Here's a patch that tries this.
> *needs more testing*. But built with this patch, I can dump and
> restore a table at the end of a 10gb database without errors.
>
> Does the method/patch seem reasonable? Anybody else who can run a couple
> of tests on it?
>
> //Magnus
>
