Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> Currently, stop wal filename is not always exclusive. If stop wal location
> doesn't indicate a boundary byte, its filename is inclusive. I'm afraid that
> the users cannot easily judge which "filename - 1" or "filename" should be
> waited. I mean that the users need to calculate whether stop wal location
> indicates a boundary byte or not before starting waiting. Such calculation
> should be done by the users?
No, which is why we provide functions to do it ;-)
It's really not worth changing the file contents. We're far more likely
to hear complaints like "you broke my archive script and I lost all my
data" than compliments about "the contents of this internal
implementation file are lots more sensible now".
regards, tom lane
