Re: Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Oops - BF:Mastodon just died
Date: 2008-01-31 16:07:03
Message-ID: 8648.1201795623@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It strikes me that the pattern needs to be {3,} or maybe just +.
>> I dunno what this column is measuring, but if we are past 0xA00
>> then surely 0x1000 is not far away.

> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b842y285(VS.71).aspx appears to
> suggest that the size of the field is fixed.

That would imply that dumpbin fails at 4096 symbols per file. While I
surely wouldn't put it past M$ to have put in such a limitation, I think
it's more likely that the documentation is badly written.

In any case it would be easy enough to make up a quick test to see what
happens with say

void func1() {}
void func2() {}
...
void func5000() {}

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-01-31 16:08:38 Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-01-31 16:02:03 Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)