Hello
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-04-23 12:37:20 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 08:49:03PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > OTOH, that also kinda bloats the output noticeably... I'm
> > > > somewhat inclined to just put the hex value or such there?
> > >
> > > That would do as well for me.
> >
> > Me too. Should we consider this for pg11? My vote is yes, with no
> > backpatch (might break scripts reading pg_{wal,xlog}dump output.
> > Though, really!?).
>
> It's low risk enough, but why should we try to get it into v11? Flags
> been around for years now.
I was thinking the newly added flags would make for possibly more
confusing scenarios, but now that I look again, the new ones are XLHL
flags not the XLOG flags being handled in this patch.
Now, frankly, this being mostly a debugging tool, I think it would be
better to have the output as complete as we can. Otherwise, when
debugging some hideous problem we find ourselves patching the tool
during an emergency in order to figure out what is going on. For this,
I would rather patch the earliest version we conveniently can. We
cannot patch pg10 because it's already out there, but not so for pg11.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services