> >However, did you test the actual backend after that change? Given where you > >change the define of off_t, that would affect every call in the backend > >that uses off_t, and it just seems very strange that you could get away > >with that without touching anything else? (If we're lucky, but I > >wouldn't count on it - there ought to be other functions in libc that we > >call that takes off_t..) > > > > I'd feel much happier if we could just patch pg_dump, since this is the > only place we know of that we need to do large file seek/tell operations.
My thoughts exactly. > Did you see this from Andreas? > > >MinGW has fseeko64 and ftello64 with off64_t. > > > > Maybe we need separate macros for MSVC and MinGW. Given the other > interactions we might need to push those deep into the C files after all > the system headers. Maybe create pg_dump_fseek.h and put them in there > and then #include that very late. We need different macrosand possibly functions, yes. I think I got enough patched at home last night to get it working with this, I was just too focused on one set of macros at the time. It's not enough to include them very late - because off_t is used in the shared datastructures in pg_dump/etc. It is possible to localise it to the pg_dump binaries, though, given some header redirection *and* given that we change all those off_t to pgoff_t (or similar). I couldn't find a way to do it without changing the off_t define. I'll try to take a look at merging these two efforts (again unless beaten to it, have to do some of that dreaded christmas shopping as well...) //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq