RE: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0

It simply reduces the size of each segment from 2Gb to 1Gb. The problem
was that some OS's (Linux in my case) don't like files exactly 2Gb in
size. I don't know how vacuum interacts with the storage manager, but in
theory it should be transparent.

--
Peter T Mount, IT Section
petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk
Anything I write here are my own views, and cannot be taken as the
official words of Maidstone Borough Council

-----Original Message-----
From: Tatsuo Ishii [mailto:t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 1:41 AM
To: Peter Mount
Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0

Just a question. Does your patch let vacuum handle segmented tables?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

>I reposted the patch from home yesterday, as bruce pointed it out in
>another thread.
>
>Peter
>
>--
>Peter T Mount, IT Section
>petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk
>Anything I write here are my own views, and cannot be taken as the
>official words of Maidstone Borough Council
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 5:52 PM
>To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0
>
>
>Say guys,
>
>I just noticed that RELSEG_SIZE still hasn't been reduced per the
>discussion from early February. Let's make sure that doesn't slip
>through the cracks, OK?
>
>I think Peter Mount was supposed to be off testing this issue.
>Peter, did you learn anything further?
>
>We should probably apply the patch to REL6_4 as well...
>
> regards, tom lane
>