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
