On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@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.ga334...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
