Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1svgjS-00GtOc-Vi for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2024 17:32:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1svgjS-002kKD-BT for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2024 17:32:18 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1svgjS-002kK3-1W for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2024 17:32:18 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1svgjP-001zTN-E1 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2024 17:32:16 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 491HWDhQ1865586; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 13:32:13 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Amul Sul , Sravan Kumar , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: pg_verifybackup: TAR format backup verification In-reply-to: <1831796.1727794088@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <1115881.1727564342@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1466068.1727709896@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1636465.1727733671@sss.pgh.pa.u! s> <1831796.1727794088@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Tue, 01 Oct 2024 10:48:08 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1865584.1727803933.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:32:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1865585.1727803933@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Here is an attempt at cleaning this up. I'm far from convinced that >> it's fully correct; my local compiler (clang version 15.0.7) doesn't >> seem fussed about conflating size_t with uint64, not even with -Wall >> -Werror. I don't suppose you have a fussier compiler locally that you >> can use to test this? > Sure, I can try it on mamba's host. It's slow though ... Yes, mamba thinks this is OK. regards, tom lane