Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file
Date: 2014-06-03 15:04:58
Message-ID: 13437.1401807898@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> There's a far bigger problem there, which is if we're afraid that
>> current_len_left might exceed 4GB then what is it exactly that guarantees
>> it'll fit in an 11-digit field?

> Well, we will only write 11 digits in there, that's when we read it. But
> print_val() on the server side should probably have an overflow check
> there, which it doesn't. It's going to write some strange values int here
> if it overflows..

My point is that having backups crash on an overflow doesn't really seem
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?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-06-03 15:12:26 Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-06-03 15:04:35 Re: strtoll/strtoull emulation