On 12/13/20, 7:01 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:26:01AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> Yeah, I had the same feeling. At least, the two LSNs in the message
>> under discussion are simply redundant. So +1 to just remove the LSN at
>> the caller site.
>
> That would mean that we are ready to accept that we will never forget
> to a LSN in any of the messages produced by xlogreader.c or any of the
> callbacks used by pg_waldump. FWIW, I'd rather let a position in this
> report than none. At least it allows users to know the area where the
> problem happened.
Yeah. Unfortunately, I suspect we will have the same problem if we
add a new variable that we only use to track the LSN to report for
errors.
Nathan