On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 12:07:31PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 11:24 AM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can't think of a good reason to have this DEBUG1 as there is no > predictability of it getting generated even with tests using an > injection point. OTOH, I don't have any objections to it if you would > like to proceed with this.
The non-predictability of the event is my reason, as it can be useful to know this information when grabbing for specific patterns in the logs between failed and successful run differences. In short, I'd like to think that we are OK here, still this information is free to have and it could be useful if we still have problems. A custom message WAL record is overdoing in it a bit, IMO, an elog() with the LSN returned should be enough. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
