On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 4:39 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip] I guess you did this because init fork references aren't really > expected in the WAL, but I think it's more consistent to allow up to > MAX_FORKNUM, not least because your documentation mentions 3 as a > valid value. So I adjust this to allow MAX_FORKNUM. Make sense? > Makes sense, but I think I'd actually thought it was +1 of the max forks, so you give me more credit than I deserve in this case... :-) > Here are some more details I noticed, as a likely future user of this > very handy feature, which I haven't changed, because they seem more > debatable and you might disagree... > > 1. I think it'd be less surprising if the default value for --fork > wasn't 0... why not show all forks? > Agreed; made it default to all, with the ability to filter down if desired. > 2. I think it'd be less surprising if --fork without --relation > either raised an error (like --block without --relation), or were > allowed, with the meaning "show me this fork of all relations". > Agreed; reworked to support the use case of only showing target forks. > 3. It seems funny to have no short switch for --fork when everything > else has one... what about -F? > Good idea; I'd hadn't seen capitals in the getopt list so didn't consider them, but I like this. Enclosed is v6, incorporating these fixes and docs tweaks. Best, David
v6-0001-Add-additional-filtering-options-to-pg_waldump.patch
Description: Binary data
