Обсуждение: Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS
Hi all, I just spent some of the morning helping a customer build Pg 7.2.1 from source in order to get Linux largefile support in pg_dump etc. They possibly would have kept using the binary RPMs if they had this feature. This got me to wondering why the Redhat/Mandrake...etc binary RPMS are built without it. Would including default largefile support in Linux RPMs be a good idea ? (I am presuming that such RPMs are built by the Pg community and "supplied" to the various distros... apologies if I have this all wrong...) Cheers Mark
Note, I'm not sure this belongs in -hackers so I've added -general but left -hackers in so that list can at least see that it's going to -general. On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, mark Kirkwood wrote: > Hi all, > > I just spent some of the morning helping a customer build Pg 7.2.1 from > source in order to get Linux largefile support in pg_dump etc. They > possibly would have kept using the binary RPMs if they had this feature. > > This got me to wondering why the Redhat/Mandrake...etc binary RPMS are > built without it. > > Would including default largefile support in Linux RPMs be a good idea ? > > (I am presuming that such RPMs are built by the Pg community and > "supplied" to the various distros... apologies if I have this all wrong...) I must admit that I am fairly new to PostgreSQL but I have used it and read stuff about it and I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain what you did? A quick scan of the source shows that there may be an issue in storage/file/buffile.c:BufFileSeek() is that the sort of thing you are talking about? Or maybe I've got it completely wrong and you're talking about adding code to pg_dump although I thought that could already handle large objects. Actually, I'm going to shut up now before I really do show my ignorance and let you answer. -- Nigel J. Andrews Director --- Logictree Systems Limited Computer Consultants
On Thursday 08 August 2002 05:36 pm, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > Matt Kirkwood wrote: > > I just spent some of the morning helping a customer build Pg 7.2.1 from > > source in order to get Linux largefile support in pg_dump etc. They > > possibly would have kept using the binary RPMs if they had this feature. And you added this by doing what, exactly? I'm not familiar with pg_dump largefile support as a standalone feature. > > (I am presuming that such RPMs are built by the Pg community and > > "supplied" to the various distros... apologies if I have this all > > wrong...) You have this wrong. The distributions do periodically sync up with my revision, and I with theirs, but they do their own packaging. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 06:07, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday 08 August 2002 05:36 pm, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > > Matt Kirkwood wrote: > > > > I just spent some of the morning helping a customer build Pg 7.2.1 from > > > source in order to get Linux largefile support in pg_dump etc. They > > > possibly would have kept using the binary RPMs if they had this feature. > > And you added this by doing what, exactly? I'm not familiar with pg_dump > largefile support as a standalone feature. As far as I can make out from the libc docs, largefile support is automatic if the macro _GNU_SOURCE is defined and the kernel supports large files. Is that a correct understanding? or do I actually need to do something special to ensure that pg_dump supports large files? -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "...ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." John 16:24
Lamar Owen wrote: > >And you added this by doing what, exactly? I'm not familiar with pg_dump >largefile support as a standalone feature. > Enabling largefile support for the utilities was accomplished by : CFLAGS="-O2 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure ... It seemed to me that the ability to dump databases >2G without gzip, split etc was a "good thing". What do you think ? > > >You have this wrong. The distributions do periodically sync up with my >revision, and I with theirs, but they do their own packaging. > I see.... so if you enabled such support, they they would probably sync that too ?