On 20/07/12 09:58, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
On 20/07/12 09:08, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 07/19/2012 01:48 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake
<j...@commandprompt.com> wrote:
On 07/19/2012 01:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I did a backport of temp_file_limit feature to 9.1, but when we
tested
this patch, we found very restristrictive limit to 2GB.
2GB is nonsense, because this is session limit of temp files, and
these files should be longer than 2GB.
I haven't read the patch but... don't all 32bit platforms have a
2GB limit
(by default)?
I don't think so.
LFS got done in the mid-90s, which is long enough ago for people to
start forgetting about it. Are there any supported platforms that
didn't adopt LFS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_file_support
Note: "by default" :). I know they could support LFS but as I recall
you had to compile specifically for it (at least on linux and old
versions of pg).
So I was curious if it was that specific limitation or a limitation
within the Pg code itself.
It is to do with the datatype of the GUC used for the setting - I
haven't got the patch in from of me to look at, but recall that going
larger meant using a float type which meant you couldn't get nice
units displayed (MB, GB etc).
I'll take a proper look later.
From src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
{"temp_file_limit", PGC_SUSET, RESOURCES_DISK,
gettext_noop("Limits the total size of all temp files used
by each session."),
gettext_noop("-1 means no limit."),
GUC_UNIT_KB
},
&temp_file_limit,
-1, -1, INT_MAX,
NULL, NULL, NULL
},
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
