On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 9:49 AM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of my (lack of) opinion on the inclusion of this patch in
> PG (I did not significantly review this patch); I noticed that you do
> not yet identify the 'fork' of the FPI in the file name.
>
> A lack of fork identifier in the exported file names would make
> debugging much more difficult due to the relatively difficult to
> identify data contained in !main forks, so I think this oversight
> should be fixed, be it through `_forkname` postfix like normal fork
> segments, or be it through `.<forknum>` numerical in- or postfix in
> the filename.
>
> -Matthias
Hi Matthias, great point. Enclosed is a revised version of the patch
that adds the fork identifier to the end if it's a non-main fork.
Best,
David
