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. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
