On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> I'm not fully on board with that premise. (Get a better tar tool.
> Submit a patch.)
Noah was unable to find one that works:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130801161519.GA334956@tornado.leadboat.com
If most tar tools worked, and there was one that didn't, I think
that'd be a reasonable argument. But telling people to get a better
tool when they'd have to write it first seems rather unfriendly.
> But this also ties in with the recent discovery that the tar format
> cannot handle symlinks longer than 99 bytes. So this patch could also
> fix that problem by putting the untruncated name of the symlink in the
> WAL data.
Yeah, seems like a chance to kill two birds with one stone.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
