More on to my earlier email, I believe SQLite already uses those flags, I haven't done the testing myself, but it is claimed SQLite is able to create rather large databases (in terms of TBs) without any fuss,
Regards, Jayavasanthan J On 8/22/07, J Jayavasanthan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Victor, > > Normally the large file creation should not fail on the 32 bit builds. And > -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 will create other side effects > such as off_t getting to long long rather than long and similar with > size_t (I guess). > > The solution is to access/create the file along with the following flag > O_LARGEFILE option. Please note that this option is not needed for FreeBSD > as this OS uses 64 bit offsets by default. > > For windows, if you have to create a file larger than 4 GB, then you have > to have NTFS file system and not FAT32 (FYKI) > > HTH, > > Regards, > Jayavasanthan J. > > > On 8/21/07, Victor Secarin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > Having built sqlite 3.4.2 for Enterprise 3, 4, Fedora 5 and Solaris 8, > > both 32 and 64 bits, I then ran the fulltest on each. As it takes a long > > time and produces a large output, one looks first at the end, and if it > > says "0 errors" one thinks everything is as expected. > > > > By chance, I later discovered the following: > > > > ================================================ > > > ./testfixture ../sqlite-3.4.2/test/bigfile.test > > bigfile-1.1... Ok > > **** Unable to create a file larger than 4096 MB. ***** > > Memory leaked: 0 bytes in 0 allocations > > > > soft-heap-limit changed by this script from 0 to > > Thread-specific data deallocated properly > > 0 errors out of 2 tests > > Failures on these tests: > > ================================================== > > > > This happens on all my 32 bit builds. Not on the 64 bit ones. > > In order to get large file functionality one has to configure with > > CFLAGS="-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" > > > > The problem is that "Unable to create a file larger than 4096 MB" is not > > > > considered a failure, so that people who only see the "0 errors out of > > 409660 tests" at the end of the log file will not know they have the > > problem. > > It is really difficult to read the whole log file. > > I suggest to > > (a) make this a counted error, or else > > (b) add an extra test specially for this problem, or else > > (c) categorize the messages, prefixing them with a small number of > > standard words, like "ERROR:" and "WARNING:" and "INFO:", which would > > enable one to use grep or search in an editor. Then the problem above > > could be a WARNING rather than a counted ERROR. > > > > > > yours truly, > > Victor Secarin > > > > -- first me then home first home then country first country then world fools always read inverse
