Re: pg recovery
| От | Bernhard D Rohrer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg recovery |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 477BD872.8070405@sm-wg.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg recovery (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pg recovery
|
| Список | pgsql-admin |
Tom Lane wrote: > Hmmm ... but it sure looks like the values are offset a few fields from > where they belong ... [ meditates awhile... ] Ah, I've sussed it: the > pg_controldata output you showed can be explained exactly by the > assumption that this copy of pg_controldata thinks time_t is 64 bits > wide, where the pg_control file actually has 32-bit-wide time_t fields. > That explains both the ridiculously large dates (quite impossible for > 32-bit time_t's) and the offsetting of the following fields. > > So the short answer is probably that you're trying to use a 64-bit build > of Postgres against a 32-bit database. You need to get a matching build. > > (We really need to stop using time_t in pg_control.h ...) > > regards, tom lane exactly - I am currently installing a 32bit dapper on a VM in order to do the migration thanks muchly :) Bernhard -- Graylion's Fetish & Fashion Store Goth and Kinky Boots, Clothing and Jewellery http://www.graylion.net
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: