| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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 21:37:18 |
| Message-ID: | 373da3f2-bc61-414a-8b5d-d494fd978b18@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/25/24 09:29, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 08:56:52AM -0400, David Steele wrote:
>> I would still advocate for a back patch here. It is frustrating to get logs
>> from users that just say:
>>
>> LOG: invalid checkpoint record
>> PANIC: could not locate a valid checkpoint record
>>
>> It would be very helpful to know what the checkpoint record LSN was in this
>> case.
>
> I agree.
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.
Regards,
-David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-01-25 21:41:22 | Re: Guiding principle for dropping LLVM versions? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-01-25 21:32:39 | Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support |