From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | paul(dot)vanderlinden(at)mapcreator(dot)eu, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15460: Error while creating index or constraint |
Date: | 2018-11-13 20:12:10 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=3A3YU+4dJPFA=+PhiZMft=opbNmiCcN=kVGgBbLhC79w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 6:50 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:50 AM Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > I think using pgoff_t would fix the problem on Windows, but on other
> > systems where it maps directly to off_t it might also be 32 bits, so
> > I'm not entirely sure what pgoff_t is for. Perhaps we should just use
> > int64 directly for this? Like in the attached draft patch. I don't
> > have a Windows system to test it on. A separate bug report that came
> > in today[1] has repro steps that could be used to validate it.
>
> I think that int64 is the way to go.
Thanks. So, a practical matter: The change of return type as
proposed is an ABI break for 32 bit off_t systems. BufFileSize() is
brand new and seems pretty unlikely to be used by extensions so soon.
Could we change that? A conservative alternative would be to define a
second function BufFileSize64() and use that for parallel CREATE INDEX
in REL_11_STABLE, leaving the off_t version as it is, but then fold
them back into a single version in master.
> Should I fix up the diagnostic message to address Tom's complaints
> about that in a separate patch?
+1
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2018-11-13 20:51:45 | BUG #15501: postgresql 9.6.11 packages missing from rhel6 64bit repos |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-11-13 17:50:26 | Re: BUG #15460: Error while creating index or constraint |