From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large objects. |
Date: | 2010-09-26 16:14:38 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimygJfJRHjEa1bGMwkU-oPGMqdX62FWCSQcCXO6@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Tell me please, why lo_write() returns me the number of bytes "actually
> written"
> when current write location is out of 2GB ? IMO, in this case it should
> returns
> at least zero.
> lo_read() returns zero in this case, and it is correct, IMO.
Hmm, are you sure? If the behavior of lo_read and lo_write is not
symmetric, that's probably not good, but I don't see anything obvious
in the code to make me think that's the case. Returning 0 for a value
>= 2^31 seems problematic unless there is no possibility of a short
read (or write).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-26 16:16:09 | Re: C function to return tuple |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-26 16:08:38 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Still more tweaking of git_changelog. |