On 2014-06-03 11:04:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
