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
> > > limit in the basebackup format.  After a bit of googling, I found out
> > > recent POSIX specs for tar format include "extended headers" that
> > > 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
> > 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?


Reply via email to