From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Giles Lean <giles(at)nemeton(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
Date: | 2002-10-22 16:22:57 |
Message-ID: | 23495.1035303777@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> However, since we don't know if we support any non-integral off_t
> platforms, and because a configure test would require us to have two
> code paths for with/without integral off_t, I suggest we apply my
> version of Philip's patch and let's see if everyone can compile it
> cleanly.
Actually, it looks to me like configure will spit up if off_t is not
an integral type:
/* Check that off_t can represent 2**63 - 1 correctly.
We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
&& LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
? 1 : -1];
So I think we're wasting our time to debate whether we need to support
non-integral off_t ... let's just apply Bruce's version and wait to
see if anyone has a problem before doing more work.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-22 16:26:30 | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2002-10-22 16:20:45 | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |