| From: | jaime soler <jaime(dot)soler(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | cpt(at)novozymes(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #13446: pg_dump fails with large tuples |
| Date: | 2015-06-17 09:40:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1434534046.3638.31.camel@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
El mié, 17-06-2015 a las 13:08 +0900, Michael Paquier escribió:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, <cpt(at)novozymes(dot)com> wrote:
> > This message then shows up in the server logs. It looks like maybe pg_dump
> > is limited to exactly 1GB textual representation?
>
> Yep. That's a known limitation of COPY and palloc() in general.
But could we use pg_dump with -Fc or -Fd in this case ? or the only way
to backup this table is using physical backup ?
Thanks
> --
> Michael
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2015-06-17 10:22:11 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_xlog on a hot_standby slave filling up |
| Previous Message | galaxyshih | 2015-06-17 09:30:29 | BUG #13450: problem about applying point-in-time recovery |