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.
--
Michael