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?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
