Regarding to discussion about large segment size of table files a test
pathconf function (see
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/...pathconf.html).

You can see output there:

_PC_FILESIZEBITS - 3rd column
_PC_LINK_MAX - 4th column
_PC_NAME_MAX - 5th column
_PC_PATH_MAX - 6th column


Solaris Nevada ZFS 64 -1 255 1024
UFS 41 32767 255 1024
FAT 33 1 8 1024
NFS 41 32767 255 1024
Solaris 8 UFS 41 32767 255 1024
NFS 40 32767 255 1024
Centos4(2.6.11) EXT3 64 32000 255 4096
XFS 64 2147483647 255 4096
Mac OSX leopard HFS+ 64 32767 255 1024


The result is not really good . I tested it also on HP.UX 11.11/11.23,
Tru64 v4.0 and MacOS tiger (big thanks to Tomas Honzak for machine
access) and Tiger and Tru64 does not recognize _PC_FILESIZEBITS
definition and HP_UX returns errno=EINVAL. I also don't trust Linux
result on EXT3. It seems that only Solaris and Leopard returns
relatively correct result (33 bit on FAT FS is probably not correct).

I attached my test program, please let me know your result from your
favorite OS/FS (binary must be saved on tested FS).

However, I think we cannot use this method to test max file size on FS .

Comments, ideas?

Zdenek

PS: Does pg_dump strip a large file or not?


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reini Urban napsal(a):
>
> cygwin 1.5 on NTFS. But 1.7 will a have much larger _PC_PATH_MAX.
>
> _PC_FILESIZEBITS undefined _PC_LINK_MAX = 8 _PC_NAME_MAX = 260 _PC_PATH_MAX = 257
>
> So this is really bad.

Thanks for reporting. It seems not good because postgreSQL assumes that _PC_PATH_MAX
is minimal 1024 for all platforms. If this values is correct then user on cygwin can have a
trouble. Please, could you test postgres with a long PATH?


thanks Zdenek

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers