On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 9:49 AM Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of my (lack of) opinion on the inclusion of this patch in > PG (I did not significantly review this patch); I noticed that you do > not yet identify the 'fork' of the FPI in the file name. > > A lack of fork identifier in the exported file names would make > debugging much more difficult due to the relatively difficult to > identify data contained in !main forks, so I think this oversight > should be fixed, be it through `_forkname` postfix like normal fork > segments, or be it through `.<forknum>` numerical in- or postfix in > the filename. > > -Matthias Hi Matthias, great point. Enclosed is a revised version of the patch that adds the fork identifier to the end if it's a non-main fork. Best, David
v2-pg_waldump-save-fpi.patch
Description: Binary data
