On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 15:39, James Kelty wrote:
> Hmmm. Well, thanks for that. I, luckily, am not working on a needed system,
> so I am just gonna re-install the data with our custom loader. Thanks,
> though!
It looks like there's probably a 2.1GB or 4.2GB limit inside
psql. Probably fseek? In these days of 120GB hard disks,
should pg go to 64 bit file sizes? No small feat, I admit...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-novice-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-novice-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Ron Johnson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:44 PM
> To: PgSQL Novice ML
> Subject: Re: [NOVICE] File size limit on pg_dumpall
>
>
> On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 15:00, James Kelty wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I am upgrading from 7.1.3 to 7.2.1 (yeah!), but I ran into a problem
> (boo!).
> > I did a pg_dumpall on the database before I upgraded, per the
> instructions.
> > But, the file was something like 5.5G. So, of course, psql -f filename
> > complains that it is too large. Any work around?
>
> COPY out some big tables, then drop them. Then, the pg_dumpall output
> won't be so big. Of course, you'd then have to COPY in the files and
> re-index them...
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| I can't make you have an abortion, but you can *make* me pay |
| child support for 18 years? |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
