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 17:15:05 |
Message-ID: | 23833.1035306905@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:
> Your version will break more often because we are assuming we can
> determine the endian-ness of the OS, _and_ for quad off_t types,
> assuming we know that is stored the same too. While we have ending for
> int's, I have no idea if quads are always stored the same.
There is precedent for problems of that ilk, too, cf PDP_ENDIAN: years
ago someone made double-word-integer software routines and did not
think twice about which word should appear first in storage, with the
consequence that the storage order was neither little-endian nor
big-endian. (We have exactly the same issue with our CRC routines for
compilers without int64: the two-int32 struct is defined in a way that's
compatible with little-endian storage, and on a big-endian machine it'll
produce a funny storage order.)
Unless someone can point to a supported (or potentially interesting)
platform on which off_t is indeed not integral, I think the shift-based
code is our safest bet. (The precedent of the off_t checking code in
configure makes me really doubt that there are any platforms with
non-integral off_t.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-22 19:16:18 | Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? |
Previous Message | Sean Chittenden | 2002-10-22 17:10:46 | Re: New SET/autocommit problem |