From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Giles Lean <giles(at)nemeton(dot)com(dot)au>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
Date: | 2002-10-04 03:10:19 |
Message-ID: | 200210040310.g943AJu00946@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Giles Lean <giles(at)nemeton(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > When talking of near-current systems with 64 bit off_t you are not
> > going to find one without support for 64 bit integral types.
>
> I tend to agree with Giles on this point. A non-integral representation
> of off_t is theoretically possible but I don't believe it exists in
> practice. Before going far out of our way to allow it, we should first
> require some evidence that it's needed on a supported or
> likely-to-be-supported platform.
>
> time_t isn't guaranteed to be an integral type either if you read the
> oldest docs about it ... but no one believes that in practice ...
I think fpos_t is the non-integral one. I thought off_t almost always
was integral.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Warner | 2002-10-04 03:15:29 | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-04 03:07:09 | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |