On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 1:31 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:06:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:41 AM Bertrand Drouvot > > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Yeah, that makes fully sense. +1 to back-patch both then. >
+1 for the back-patching. For 0002, I think we could report the error a bit earlier — the better place might be in the else part of the following IF-block, IMO: /* * If s->header_length == 0, then this is a full file; otherwise, it's * an incremental file. */ if (s->header_length == 0) Regards, Amul
