From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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 15:12:26 |
Message-ID: | 20140603151226.GN24145@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-06-03 11:04:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?
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...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-03 15:28:22 | Re: strtoll/strtoull emulation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-03 15:04:58 | Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file |