At Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:46:37 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 04:47:15PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > Yes, backup_label looks correct.
> >
> > backup_label (extract):
> > START WAL LOCATION: 0/528 (file 00020005)
> > CHECKPOINT LOCATION: 0/500
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 04:47:15PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Yes, backup_label looks correct.
>
> backup_label (extract):
> START WAL LOCATION: 0/528 (file 00020005)
> CHECKPOINT LOCATION: 0/560
> START TIMELINE: 2
Okay. I have worked on that today, did more manua
At Fri, 20 Aug 2021 16:23:56 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 03:33:37PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > That's looks like a domino falling. I had the following result, which
> > looks fine.
> >
> > "WAL-Ranges": [
> > { "Timeline": 6, "Start-LSN": "0/630C7E8", "End
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 03:33:37PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> That's looks like a domino falling. I had the following result, which
> looks fine.
>
> "WAL-Ranges": [
> { "Timeline": 6, "Start-LSN": "0/630C7E8", "End-LSN": "0/630C850" },
> { "Timeline": 5, "Start-LSN": "0/630C780", "End-LSN"
Thank you for the comment.
At Thu, 19 Aug 2021 15:51:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 02:30:31PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > The "Start-LSN" above is the beginning of timeline 2, not the
> > backup-start LSN. The segment had been removed by the checkpoint.
>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 02:30:31PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> The "Start-LSN" above is the beginning of timeline 2, not the
> backup-start LSN. The segment had been removed by the checkpoint.
Good catch. That's broken, and I find cleaner the logic to compare
the TLI numbers rather than the
