On 2026-04-01 We 9:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2026-04-01 06:39:05 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 2026-03-31 Tu 10:05 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 11:23 AM Tom Lane<[email protected]> wrote:
Thomas Munro<[email protected]> writes:
Anyway, given the defaults, GNU tar + ZFS/BTRFS users must be pretty
unlikely to hit this in the wild, and the symptom is a confusing error
in a maintenance tool, not corruption, so I don't think this is a big
deal. I might still try teaching the astreamer code to understand PAX
1.0 when it sees it in the next cycle though, for the benefit of
FreeBSD users.
I agree that this isn't too critical if the effects are confined to
pg_waldump. I believe that pg_basebackup and pg_verifybackup also use
astreamer_tar.c, but it's not clear to me if they'd ever be asked to
parse files made by tar(1) and not by our own sparseness-ignorant
tar-writing code. If they can be, that'd be a higher-priority reason
to fill in this gap.
I pushed the workaround for the test.
It occurred to me this morning that we probably shouldn't run this test on
Windows, and if we do we shouldn't be using /dev/null (the Windows
equivalent of which is just "nul"). The simplest fix would just be to add a
"!$windows_os" to the if test.
Why should we skip this test on windows?
I think we have historically been way too liberal about sprinkling
!$windows_os test disablements around. More than once there were actual bugs
that we just swept under the rug by disabling the tests that detected them.
Either we support windows or we don't.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I didn't think this was going to be an issue
on NTFS.
In general I agree with you, though. I try to avoid skipping things on
Windows.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
