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 5.1.0.14.0.20021019164409.04006380@mail.rhyme.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?  (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>)
Responses Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
List pgsql-hackers
I have put the latest patch at:
    http://downloads.rhyme.com.au/postgresql/pg_dump/

along with two dump files of the regression DB, one with 4 byte
and the other with 8 byte offsets. I can read/restore each from
the other, so it looks pretty good. Once the endianness is tested,
we should be OK.

Known problems:

- will not cope with > 4GB files and size_t not 64 bit.
- when printing data position, it is assumed that off_t is UINT64  (we could remove this entirely - it's just for
display)
- if seek is not supported, then an intXX is assigned to off_t  when file offsets are needed. This *should* not cause a
problem since without seek, the offsets will not be written to the file.
 

Changes from Prior Version:

- No longer stores or outputs data length
- Assumes result of ftello is correct if it disagrees with internally  kept tally.
- 'pg_restore -l' now shows sizes of int and offset.


----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Anuradha Ratnaweera
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresql and multithreading
Next
From: Teodor Sigaev
Date:
Subject: Re: Current CVS has strange parser for float type