> On 7 Apr 2024, at 18:28, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> On 2024-04-07 16:52:05 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 7 Apr 2024, at 14:51, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-06 Sa 20:49, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>>>> That's probably unnecessary optimization, but it seems a tad silly to read an
>>>> entire, potentially sizable, file to just use the last 1k. Not sure if the way
>>>> slurp_file() uses seek supports negative ofsets, the docs read to me like that
>>>> may only be supported with SEEK_END.
>>>
>>> We should enhance slurp_file() so it uses SEEK_END if the offset is negative.
>>
>> Absolutely agree. Reading the thread I think Andres argues for not printing
>> anything at all in this case but we should support negative offsets anyways, it
>> will fort sure come in handy.
>
> I'm ok with printing path + some content or just the path.
I think printing the last 512 bytes or so would be a good approach, I'll take
care of it later tonight. That would be a backpatchable change IMHO.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
