On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 5:15 PM Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 10:38 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > [...]
> > Looks pretty good. I have squashed them into three patches I think are committable. Also attached is a diff showing
what'schanged - mainly this:
> >
> > . --follow + tar archive rejected (pg_waldump.c) — new validation prevents a confusing pg_fatal when combining
--followwith a tar archive
> > . error messages split (archive_waldump.c) — the single "could not read file" error is now two distinct messages:
"WALsegment is too short" (truncated file) vs "unexpected end of archive" (archive EOF) - Fixes an issue raised in
review
> > . hash table cleanup (archive_waldump.c) — free_archive_reader now iterates and frees all remaining hash entries
anddestroys the table
> >
>
> The final squashed version looks good to me, thank you. But, I would
> like to propose splitting the 0001 patch into two separate commits: a
> preparatory refactoring of the pg_waldump code and a standalone commit
> that moves the tar archive detection and compression logic to a common
> location, as the latter is an independent improvement to the existing
> codebase. Additionally, since the test file refactoring was only kept
> separate to facilitate the review and has already been reviewed, I
> suggest merging those changes into the main feature patch i.e. 0002.
> All other elements should remain in a single preparatory refactoring
> patch for pg_waldump.
>
> Attached is the version that includes the proposed split. No
> additional changes to 0002 and 0003 patches.
>
Added the two missing 'Reviewed-by' lines to the credit section of the
commit message and did a minor optimization in get_archive_wal_entry.
Regards,
Amul
