On 2024-04-07 18:51:40 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > 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.
+1 - thanks for quickly improving this.
