On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:26:01AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > Yeah, I had the same feeling. At least, the two LSNs in the message > under discussion are simply redundant. So +1 to just remove the LSN at > the caller site.
That would mean that we are ready to accept that we will never forget to a LSN in any of the messages produced by xlogreader.c or any of the callbacks used by pg_waldump. FWIW, I'd rather let a position in this report than none. At least it allows users to know the area where the problem happened. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
