| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| 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 21:42:17 |
| Message-ID: | 457162.1706218937@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2024-01-25 21:44:52 | Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-01-25 21:41:22 | Re: Guiding principle for dropping LLVM versions? |