RE: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0
От | Stupor Genius |
---|---|
Тема | RE: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 000001be52c9$440f2560$5698accf@darren обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
RE: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> For that matter it's not impossible that our own code contains similar > problems, if it does much calculating with byte offsets into the file. > (The pushups that darrenk had to do in order to calculate RELSEG_SIZE > in the first place should have suggested to him that running right at > the overflow limit was not such a hot idea...) Not my code to begin with... RELSEG_SIZE was always there hard-coded to 262144 to assume the block size would be 8k. At the time of my changes, I didn't think thru what it was for, I only changed the code that was there to calculate it and get the same value as before for variable disc block sizes. I agree that running right at the limit is a Bad Thing, but analyzing that wasn't my main area of concern with that patch. darrenk
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: