Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS
От | strange@nsk.yi.org |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20020813184559.A4569@nsk.yi.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS
Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 01:04:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > On a system where building with large-file support is reasonably > standard, I agree that PG should be built that way too. Where it's > not so standard, I agree with Andrew Sullivan's concerns ... What do you mean by "standard"? That only some filesystems are supported? In Linux the vfat filesystem doesn't support largefiles, so the behaviour is the same as if the application didn't specify O_LARGEFILE to open(2): As Helge Bahmann pointed out, "kernel will refuse to write files larger than 2GB". In current Linux, a signal (SIGXFSZ) is sent to the application that then dumps core. So, the use of O_LARGEFILE is nullified by the lack of support by the filesystem, but no problem is introduced by the application supporting largefiles, it already existed before. All the crashes and problems presented on these lists occur when largefile support isn't compiled, I didn't see one occuring from any application having the support, but not the filesystem. (Your "not so standard support"?) The changes to postgresql doesn't seem complicated, I can try to make them myself (fcntl on stdout, stdin; add check to autoconf; etc.) if no one else volunteers. Regards, Luciano Rocha -- Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: