On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:37 PM Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > + if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(previous_lsn)) > + appendStringInfo(labelfile, "PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION: %X/%X\n", > + (uint32) (previous_lsn >> 32), (uint32) previous_lsn); > > May be we should rename to something like: > "INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION" or simply "INCREMENTAL BACKUP START LOCATION" > to make it more intuitive?
So, I think that you are right that PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION might not be entirely clear, but at least in my view, INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION is definitely not clear. This backup is an incremental backup, and it has a start WAL location, so you'd end up with START WAL LOCATION and INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION and those sound like they ought to both be the same thing, but they're not. Perhaps something like REFERENCE WAL LOCATION or REFERENCE WAL LOCATION FOR INCREMENTAL BACKUP would be clearer.
Agree, how about INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WAL LOCATION ?
+1 for INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WA.
--
Jeevan Chalke Technical Architect, Product Development EnterpriseDB Corporation The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
