On 12/13/20, 7:01 PM, "Michael Paquier" <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > 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.
Yeah. Unfortunately, I suspect we will have the same problem if we add a new variable that we only use to track the LSN to report for errors. Nathan
