| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)dalibo(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix logging for invalid recovery timeline |
| Date: | 2025-02-19 17:35:18 |
| Message-ID: | 2765f538-b06f-4e57-bcb2-9ca1dc6f487d@pgbackrest.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/19/25 03:51, Benoit Lobréau wrote:
>
> I think the changes make sense. Would it be helpful to add the origin of
> the checkpoint record we are referring to ? (i.e. control file or backup
> label).
>
> For example:
>
> * Latest checkpoint in the control file is at %X/%X on timeline %u,
> * Checkpoint location in the backup_label file is at %X/%X on timeline %u,
I like this idea but I would prefer to get the patch committed as-is
first. The reason is that I'm hoping to see this batch-patched (since it
is a bug) and that is less likely if the message wording is change.
Your idea would be perfect going forward, though.
Regards,
-David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marcos Pegoraro | 2025-02-19 17:40:32 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |
| Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2025-02-19 17:08:02 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |