> On 7 Apr 2024, at 18:28, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2024-04-07 16:52:05 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> On 7 Apr 2024, at 14:51, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>> On 2024-04-06 Sa 20:49, Andres Freund wrote: >> >>>> That's probably unnecessary optimization, but it seems a tad silly to read >>>> an >>>> entire, potentially sizable, file to just use the last 1k. Not sure if the >>>> way >>>> slurp_file() uses seek supports negative ofsets, the docs read to me like >>>> that >>>> may only be supported with SEEK_END. >>> >>> We should enhance slurp_file() so it uses SEEK_END if the offset is >>> negative. >> >> Absolutely agree. Reading the thread I think Andres argues for not printing >> anything at all in this case but we should support negative offsets anyways, >> it >> will fort sure come in handy. > > I'm ok with printing path + some content or just the path.
I think printing the last 512 bytes or so would be a good approach, I'll take care of it later tonight. That would be a backpatchable change IMHO. -- Daniel Gustafsson
