On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2014-06-03 11:04:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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... > > What we had better do, IMO, is fix things so that we don't have a filesize > limit in the basebackup format. After a bit of googling, I found out that > recent POSIX specs for tar format include "extended headers" that among > other things support member files of unlimited size [1]. Rather than > fooling with partial fixes, we should make the basebackup logic use an > extended header when the file size is over INT_MAX. >
Yeah, pax seems to be the way to go. It's at least supported by GNU tar - is it also supported on say BSD, or other popular platforms? (The size extension in the general ustar format seems to be, so it would be a shame if this one is less portable) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
