From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file |
Date: | 2014-06-03 15:04:58 |
Message-ID: | 13437.1401807898@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> There's a far bigger problem there, which is if we're afraid that
>> current_len_left might exceed 4GB then what is it exactly that guarantees
>> it'll fit in an 11-digit field?
> Well, we will only write 11 digits in there, that's when we read it. But
> print_val() on the server side should probably have an overflow check
> there, which it doesn't. It's going to write some strange values int here
> if it overflows..
My point is that having backups crash on an overflow doesn't really seem
acceptable. IMO we need to reconsider the basebackup protocol and make
sure we don't *need* to put values over 4GB into this field. Where's the
requirement coming from anyway --- surely all files in PGDATA ought to be
1GB max?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-03 15:12:26 | Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-03 15:04:35 | Re: strtoll/strtoull emulation |