Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 27295.1448050812@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in
pg_basebackup
Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Guillaume Lelarge wrote: >> Looking at the file's size is probably a better idea. As far as I know, >> PostgreSQL doesn't create files bigger than 1GB, except for log files. I'm >> not sure about this but I guess pg_basebackup doesn't ship log files. So, >> looking at the size would work. > Hmm, so we let configure --with-segsize to change the file size. The > configure help says that the limit should be "less than your OS' limit > on file size". We don't warn them that this could cause backup > problems later on. Should we add a blurb about that somewhere? Actually ... why don't we get rid of the limit? wikipedia's entry on tar format says ... only 11 octal digits can be stored. This gives a maximum file size of 8 gigabytes on archived files. To overcome this limitation, star in 2001 introduced a base-256 coding that is indicated by setting the high-order bit of the leftmost byte of a numeric field. GNU-tar and BSD-tar followed this idea. If that extension is as widespread as this suggests, then following it when we have a file > 8GB seems like a better answer than failing entirely. If you try to read the dump with an old tar program, old pg_restore, etc, it might fail ... but are you really worse off than if you couldn't make the dump at all? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: