| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log |
| Date: | 2024-01-25 21:44:52 |
| Message-ID: | 0253348f-a3e4-441a-bfa5-c108662fd9e0@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/25/24 17:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> writes:
>> Another thing to note here -- knowing the LSN is important but also
>> knowing that backup recovery was attempted (i.e. backup_label exists) is
>> really crucial. Knowing both just saves so much time in back and forth
>> debugging.
>
>> It appears the tally for back patching is:
>
>> For: Andres, David, Michael B
>> Not Sure: Robert, Laurenz, Michael P
>
>> It seems at least nobody is dead set against it.
>
> We're talking about 1d35f705e, right? That certainly looks harmless
> and potentially useful. I'm +1 for back-patching.
That's the one. If we were modifying existing messages I would be
against it, but new, infrequent (but oh so helpful) messages seem fine.
Regards,
-David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2024-01-25 21:52:30 | Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-25 21:42:17 | Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log |