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

From: Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)trust(dot)ee>
Cc: Thomas Reinke <reinke(at)e-softinc(dot)com>, gjerde(at)icebox(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0
Date: 1999-02-07 13:20:14
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.04.9902071318280.553-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Hannu Krosing wrote:

> Thomas Reinke wrote:
> >
> > I may be dating myself really badly here, but isn't there a hard limit
> > on
> > the file system at 2Gig? I thought the file size attribute in Unix is
> > represented as a 32 bit signed long, which happens to be a max value
> > of 2147483648. If I'm right, it means the problem is fundamentally
> > with the file system, not with PostGres, and you won't solve this
> > unless the os supports larger files.
>
> There is logic insid PostgreSQL to overflof to nex file at 2GB, but
> apparently this is currently broken.
>
> AFAIK, there are people working on it now

Yes, me ;-)

I have an idea where the failure is occuring, but I'm still testing the
relavent parts of the code.

--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 1999-02-07 14:08:41 Re: [HACKERS] strange behaviour on pooled alloc (fwd)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-02-07 12:33:49 Re: [HACKERS] One I've never seen before: