Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevExUwTadqP=ZoTnqA3gUKv6qiuPFJ4NRpa2XBevuX8oE6w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
-- >> My point is that having backups crash on an overflow doesn't really seemWhat we had better do, IMO, is fix things so that we don't have a filesize
>> acceptable. IMO we need to reconsider the basebackup protocol and make
>> sure we don't *need* to put values over 4GB into this field. Where's the
>> requirement coming from anyway --- surely all files in PGDATA ought to be
>> 1GB max?
> Fujii's example was logfiles in pg_log. But we allow to change the
> segment size via a configure flag, so we should support that or remove
> the ability to change the segment size...
limit in the basebackup format. After a bit of googling, I found out that
recent POSIX specs for tar format include "extended headers" that among
other things support member files of unlimited size [1]. Rather than
fooling with partial fixes, we should make the basebackup logic use an
extended header when the file size is over INT_MAX.
Yeah, pax seems to be the way to go. It's at least supported by GNU tar - is it also supported on say BSD, or other popular platforms? (The size extension in the general ustar format seems to be, so it would be a shame if this one is less portable)
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: