From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_restore [archiver] file offset in dump file is too |
Date: | 2005-11-02 21:51:47 |
Message-ID: | 436934F3.2000106@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>There is no fseeko in the Windows libraries, nor any provision in the
>>mingw headers that I can see for a 64 bit off_t. So we would need to
>>roll our own to some extent - I think we need more than just a bit of
>>configure cleverness.
>>
>>However, there is a Windows library routine to do a 64bit seek and
>>return the file position, so we could fairly easily implement fseeko and
>>ftello based on that. See
>>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/vclib/html/_crt__lseek.2c_._lseeki64.asp
>>
>>
>
>See src/port/fseeko.c for a version built on fsetpos().
>
>
>
Yeah, I'm not made warm and fuzzy by the comments about fpos_t in
mingw's stdio.h, though:
/*
* An opaque data type used for storing file positions... The contents of
* this type are unknown, but we (the compiler) need to know the size
* because the programmer using fgetpos and fsetpos will be setting aside
* storage for fpos_t structres. Actually I tested using a byte array and
* it is fairly evident that the fpos_t type is a long (in CRTDLL.DLL).
* Perhaps an unsigned long? TODO? It's definitely a 64-bit number in
* MSVCRT however, and for now `long long' will do.
*/
But the example program on MSDN contains "pos = 14", which leads one to
assume that it really is some simple int underneath.
cheers
andrew
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Idar Tollefsen | 2005-11-02 21:58:47 | Re: 8.1RC1 fails to build on OS X (10.4) |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-11-02 21:50:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |