
> > The problem with flex is, that the generated c file does #include <unistd.h>
> > before we #include "postgres.h".
> > In this situation _LARGE_FILES is not defined for unistd.h and unistd.h
> > chooses to define _LARGE_FILE_API, those two are not compatible.
> 
> Yeah.  AFAICS the only way around this is to avoid doing any I/O
> operations in the flex-generated files.  Fortunately, that's not much
> of a restriction.

Unfortunately I do not think that is sufficient, since the problem is already 
at the #include level. The compiler barfs on the second #include <unistd.h>
from postgres.h

Andreas

Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:17:25 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? 
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
>> Yeah.  AFAICS the only way around this is to avoid doing any I/O
>> operations in the flex-generated files.  Fortunately, that's not much
>> of a restriction.

> Unfortunately I do not think that is sufficient, since the problem is already
> at the #include level. The compiler barfs on the second #include <unistd.h>
> from postgres.h

AIX is too stupid to wrap unistd.h in an "#ifndef" to protect against
double inclusion?  I suppose we could do that for them...

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:37:29 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: pg_dump and large files - is this a problem? 