On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:29 PM Jeevan Chalke < jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:56 PM Jeevan Ladhe < > jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:37 PM Jeevan Ladhe >>> <jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> > + if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(previous_lsn)) >>> > + appendStringInfo(labelfile, "PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION: >>> %X/%X\n", >>> > + (uint32) (previous_lsn >> 32), (uint32) >>> previous_lsn); >>> > >>> > May be we should rename to something like: >>> > "INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION" or simply "INCREMENTAL BACKUP >>> START LOCATION" >>> > to make it more intuitive? >>> >>> So, I think that you are right that PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION might not be >>> entirely clear, but at least in my view, INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL >>> LOCATION is definitely not clear. This backup is an incremental >>> backup, and it has a start WAL location, so you'd end up with START >>> WAL LOCATION and INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION and those sound >>> like they ought to both be the same thing, but they're not. Perhaps >>> something like REFERENCE WAL LOCATION or REFERENCE WAL LOCATION FOR >>> INCREMENTAL BACKUP would be clearer. >>> >> >> Agree, how about INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WAL LOCATION ? >> > > +1 for INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WA. > Sorry for the typo: +1 for the INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WAL LOCATION. > >> > > -- > Jeevan Chalke > Technical Architect, Product Development > EnterpriseDB Corporation > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > -- Jeevan Chalke Technical Architect, Product Development EnterpriseDB Corporation The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
