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

> Not sure. My original choice was to subtract 1 from the calculated
> maximum, which meant it would split just before the 2Gb limit.
> 
> However, running with the value set at the lower value:
> 
>  1998585856 Feb  8 02:25 /opt/db/base/test/smallcat
>   599007232 Feb  8 03:21 /opt/db/base/test/smallcat.1
> 
> Total 26653000 rows loaded
> 
> Would anyone really notice the lower value?
> 
> Perhaps we could make this another compile time setting, like the block
> size?

I guess all I am saying is I prefer the max-1 value.  Seems more
logical.  Could be set in config.h.in, though.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026