Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter T Mount
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.04.9902071318280.553-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@trust.ee>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0  (Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Hannu Krosing wrote:

> Thomas Reinke wrote:
> > 
> > I may be dating myself really badly here, but isn't there a hard limit
> > on
> > the file system at 2Gig? I thought the file size attribute in Unix is
> > represented as a 32 bit signed long, which happens to be a max value
> > of 2147483648. If I'm right, it means the problem is fundamentally
> > with the file system, not with PostGres, and you won't solve this
> > unless the os supports larger files.
> 
> There is logic insid PostgreSQL to overflof to nex file at 2GB, but 
> apparently this is currently broken.
> 
> AFAIK, there are people working on it now

Yes, me ;-)

I have an idea where the failure is occuring, but I'm still testing the
relavent parts of the code.

--       Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk     Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgresJava PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] One I've never seen before:
Next
From: jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] strange behaviour on pooled alloc (fwd)