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? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
