Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> We have similar code in many places -- because evidently nobody
> thought it would be a good idea to have all the logic for reading and
> writing tarfiles in a centralized location rather than having many
> copies of it -- and typically it's written to pad the block out to a
> multiple of 512 bytes. But here, the file is 0 bytes long, and then we
> add 511 zero bytes. This results in a tarfile whose length is not a
> multiple of the TAR block size:

Bleah.  Whether or not the nearest copy of tar happens to spit up on
that, it's a clear violation of the POSIX standard for tar files.
I'd vote for back-patching your 0001.

I'd lean mildly to holding 0002 until after we branch.  It probably
won't break anything, but it probably won't fix anything either.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply via email to