Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Philip Warner
Subject Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
Date
Msg-id 5.1.0.14.0.20021002094856.03b36ff8@mail.rhyme.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
At 11:20 AM 1/10/2002 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>BSD/OS has 64-bit off_t's so it does support large files.  Is there
>something I can test?

Not really since it saves only the first 32 bits of the 64 bit positions it 
will do no worse than a version that supports 32 bits only. It might even 
do slightly better. When this is sorted out, we need to verify that:

- large dump files are restorable

- dump files with 32 bit off_t restore properly on systems with 64 biy off_t

- dump files with 64 bit off_t restore properly on systems with 32 bit off_tAS
LONG AS the offsets are less than 32 bits.

- old dump files restore properly.

- new dump files have a new version number so that old pg_restore will not 
try to restore them.

We probably need to add Read/WriteOffset to pg_backup_archiver.c to read 
the appropriate sized value from a dump file, in the same way that 
Read/WriteInt works now.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498)          |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Philip Warner
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
Next
From: Justin Clift
Date:
Subject: New PostgreSQL Website : advocacy.postgresql.org