On 1/25/24 20:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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?
I think adding the LSN to the panic message would be a good change for HEAD.
However, that still would not take the place of the additional messages
in 1d35f705e showing that the LSN came from a backup_label.
Regards,
-David