On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 5:35 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > I can accept that adding log messages to back branches is ok. > Perhaps I am too nervous about things like that, because as an extension > developer I have been bitten too often by ABI breaks in minor releases > in the past.
I think that adding a log message to the back branches would probably make my life better not worse, because when people do strange things and then send me the log messages to figure out what the heck happened, it would be there, and I'd have a clue. However, the world doesn't revolve around me. I can imagine users getting spooked if a new message that they've never seen before, and I think that risk should be considered. There are good reasons for keeping the back-branches stable, and as you said before, this isn't a bug fix. I do also think it is worth considering how this proposal interacts with the proposal to remove backup_label. If that proposal goes through, then this proposal is obsolete, I believe. But if this is a good idea, does that mean that's not a good idea? Or would we try to make the pg_control which that patch would drop in place have some internal difference which we could use to drive a similar log message? Maybe we should, because knowing whether or not the user followed the backup procedure correctly would indeed be a big help and it would be regrettable to gain that capability only to lose it again... -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
