Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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: 2024-01-26 03:08:46
Message-ID: ZbMiPvbEpexkqBVX@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 05:44:52PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 1/25/24 17:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We're talking about 1d35f705e, right? That certainly looks harmless
>> and potentially useful. I'm +1 for back-patching.
>
> That's the one. If we were modifying existing messages I would be against
> it, but new, infrequent (but oh so helpful) messages seem fine.

Well, I'm OK with this consensus on 1d35f705e if folks think this is
useful enough for all the stable branches.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2024-01-26 03:23:46 Re: A performance issue with Memoize
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2024-01-26 03:01:52 Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible