On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:41 AM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > 0001 looks pretty straightforward and good to me.
Thanks for the review. > What about moving the new comment just before the new "else if"? Well, the block comment applies to the whole if-else if-else construction. If we get too many else-ifs here it may need restructuring, but I don't think it needs that now. > Yeah, "copy" is needed. I tested to "just" create an empty incremental file > and got: > > $ pg_combinebackup backup1 backup2 -o restored_full > pg_combinebackup: error: could not read file > "backup1/base/1/INCREMENTAL.6113": read 0 of 4 > > Which is not the error we want to produce. Right, it needs to look like a valid incremental file. > s/pg_combinebackup fails/pg_combinebackup fails due to an unexpected > incremental file/? OK > I'm not sure about 0001 but I think 0002 deserves a back patch as I think it > fits > into the "low-risk fixes" category [0]. I'm inclined to back-patch both, then. We might have more small fixes and they'll be less risky to back-patch if we back-patch them all. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
