Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mk73O-00022P-Oi for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 15:59:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mk73M-0002cs-Iq for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 15:59:24 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mk73M-0002bL-9V for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 15:59:24 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mk73J-0002oe-7d for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 15:59:22 +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 1A8FxGJG946661; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:59:16 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Jeevan Ladhe , Mark Dilger , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" , tushar Subject: Re: refactoring basebackup.c In-reply-to: References: <58D2BD01-B541-4032-9C0B-B6143841E7ED@enterprisedb.com> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Mon, 08 Nov 2021 09:52:10 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <946659.1636387156.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 10:59:16 -0500 Message-ID: <946660.1636387156@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > It turns out that these commits are causing failures on prairiedog. > Per email from Tom off-list, that's apparently because prairiedog has > a fussy version of tar that doesn't like it when you omit the trailing > NUL blocks that are supposed to be part of a tar file. FTR, prairiedog is green. It's Noah's AIX menagerie that's complaining. It's actually a little bit disturbing that we're only seeing a failure on that one platform, because that means that nothing else is anchoring us to the strict POSIX specification for tarfile format. We knew that GNU tar is forgiving about missing trailing zero blocks, but apparently so is BSD tar. One part of me wants to add some explicit test for the trailing blocks. Another says, well, the *de facto* tar standard seems not to require the trailing blocks, never mind the letter of POSIX --- so when AIX dies, will anyone care anymore? Maybe not. regards, tom lane