Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Giles Lean <giles(at)nemeton(dot)com(dot)au>
Subject: Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
Date: 2002-10-25 01:32:12
Message-ID: 200210250132.g9P1WCo13218@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Philip Warner wrote:
> At 10:08 PM 23/10/2002 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >Well, that certainly changes the functionality of the code. I thought
> >that fseeko test was done so that things that couldn't be seeked on were
> >detected.
>
> You are quite correct. It should read:
>
> #ifdef HAVE_FSEEKO
> ctx->hasSeek = fseeko(...,SEEK_SET);
> #else
> ctx->hasSeek = FALSE;
> #endif
>
> pipes are the main case for which we are checking.

OK, I have applied the following patch to set hasSeek only if
fseek/fseeko is reliable. This takes care of the random failure case
for large files. Now I need to see if I can get the custom fseeko
working for more platforms.

--
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

Attachment Content-Type Size
unknown_filename text/plain 6.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-25 01:38:00 Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-24 23:43:00 Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem?