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

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Peter T Mount wrote:
> >> How about dropping the suffix, so you would have:
> >> .../data/2/tablename
> >> Doing that doesn't mean having to increase the filename buffer size, just
> >> the format and arg order (from %s.%d to %d/%s).
> 
> I thought of that also, but concluded it was a bad idea, because it
> means you cannot symlink several of the /n subdirectories to the same
> place.  It also seems just plain risky/errorprone to have different
> files named the same thing...

That's true.

[snip]

> >> I'd think we could add a test when the new segment is created for the
> >> symlink/directory. If it doesn't exist, then create it.
> 
> Absolutely, the system would need to auto-create a /n subdirectory if
> one didn't already exist.
> 
> > I'd suggest making the max file size 1 Gig default, configurable
> > someplace, and solving the data distribution as a separate effort.
> 
> We might actually be saying the same thing, if by that remark you
> mean that we can come back later and write "real" data distribution
> management tools.  I'm just pointing out that given a configurable
> max file size we can have a primitive facility almost for free.

We are saying the same thing. To implement having the %d/%s.%d format we'd
need to just add 11 bytes to the temporary buffer (keeping the same
capacity as the cuurent code).

Peter

--       Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk     Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgresJava PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf