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.
Yes, I've pested over this one in the past when debugging corruption
issues. To me, this would just mean to appens to the PANIC an "at
%X/%X", but perhaps you have more in mind for these code paths?
--
Michael
