From: | David Gould <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup |
Date: | 2015-11-20 21:47:50 |
Message-ID: | 20151120134750.679213b0@engels |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:20:12 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Actually ... why don't we get rid of the limit? wikipedia's entry on
> tar format says
>
> ... only 11 octal digits can be stored. This gives a maximum file size
> of 8 gigabytes on archived files. To overcome this limitation, star in
> 2001 introduced a base-256 coding that is indicated by setting the
> high-order bit of the leftmost byte of a numeric field. GNU-tar and
> BSD-tar followed this idea.
>
> If that extension is as widespread as this suggests, then following it
> when we have a file > 8GB seems like a better answer than failing
> entirely. If you try to read the dump with an old tar program, old
> pg_restore, etc, it might fail ... but are you really worse off than
> if you couldn't make the dump at all?
>
> regards, tom lane
+1
-dg
--
David Gould daveg(at)sonic(dot)net
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2015-11-20 21:56:11 | Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-11-20 20:20:12 | Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup |