Principal DB Size

[Ken Raeburn]

On Jun 18, 2004, at 16:01, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>> Without such a check, corruption seems likely; with a check, it ought 
>> to
>> result in an error when storing the new record, but no corruption of 
>> the
>> on-disk database.  With large file support, like I said, it just
>> shouldn't be a problem, but apparently that's not the case...
>
> If the values you are multiplying do not have 64-bit type, then the 
> result will not have 64-bit type, even if you are passing it to a 
> function which takes a 64-bit parameter -- the type of an expression 
> does not depend on what you are doing with its value.  Casting 
> pagesize to the type of the argument (loff_t or some such?) may make 
> the problem go away.

Right.  I meant, if BDB 4.x has large file support, then they're using 
64-bit types there.  If they're using 32-bit types, they may *think* 
they have large file support... :-)

Ken