Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log

On 11/17/23 01:41, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-11-16 at 20:18 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I've often had to analyze what caused corruption in PG instances, where the
>> symptoms match not having had backup_label in place when bringing on the
>> node. However that's surprisingly hard - the only log messages that indicate
>> use of backup_label are at DEBUG1.
>>
>> Given how crucial use of backup_label is and how frequently people do get it
>> wrong, I think we should add a LOG message - it's not like use of backup_label
>> is a frequent thing in the life of a postgres instance and is going to swamp
>> the log.  And I think we should backpatch that addition.
>
> +1
>
> I am not sure about the backpatch: it is not a bug, and we should not wantonly
> introduce new log messages in a minor release. Some monitoring system may
> get confused.
>
> What about adding it to the "redo starts at" message, something like
>
> redo starts at 12/12345678, taken from control file
>
> or
>
> redo starts at 12/12345678, taken from backup label

I think a backpatch is OK as long as it is a separate message, but I
like your idea of adding to the "redo starts" message going forward.

I know this isn't really a bug, but not being able to tell where
recovery information came from seems like a major omission in the logging.

Regards,
-David