On Jun 3, 2014 6:17 PM, "Andres Freund" <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-06-03 17:57:52 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > 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) > > PG's tar.c already uses the ustar format and the referenced extension is > an extension to ustar as far as I understand it. So at least tarballs > with files < 8GB would still continue to be readable with all currently > working implementations.
Yeah, that is a clear advantage of that method. Didn't read up on pax format backwards compatibility, does it have some trick to achieve something similar? /Magnus
