Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB
От
Michael Paquier
Тема
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB
Дата
Msg-id
aRVZDTFwNwBUdyGe@paquier.xyz
Ответ на
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB (Michael Paquier)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
[Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 04:58:43PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Thanks. As the stamps have been pushed for the next minor release, I > have applied and backpatched the meson check for now. I'll look at > your patch next, for HEAD. Moving on to the I/O routine changes. There was a little bit of noise in the diffs, like one more comment removed that should still be around. Indentation has needed some adjustment as well, there was one funny diff with a cast to pgoff_t. And done this part as a first step, because that's already a nice cut. Then, about the test module. src/test/modules/Makefile was missing, and once updated I have noticed the extra REGRESS in the module's Makefile that made the tests fail because we just have a TAP test. This also meant that TAP_TESTS = 1 was also missing from the Makefile. I've fixed these myself as per the attached. Anyway, I agree with the point about the restriction with WIN32: there can be advantages in being able to run that in other places. I think that we should add a new value for PG_TEST_EXTRA and execute the test based on that, or on small machines with little disk space (think small SD cards), this is going to blow up. Also, is there a point in making that a TAP test? A SQL test should work OK based on the set of SQL functions introduced for the file creation step and the validation steps. We could also use alternate outputs if required. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Chao Li
Дата: