Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log

On 1/25/24 17:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
>> Another thing to note here -- knowing the LSN is important but also
>> knowing that backup recovery was attempted (i.e. backup_label exists) is
>> really crucial. Knowing both just saves so much time in back and forth
>> debugging.
> 
>> It appears the tally for back patching is:
> 
>> For: Andres, David, Michael B
>> Not Sure: Robert, Laurenz, Michael P
> 
>> It seems at least nobody is dead set against it.
> 
> We're talking about 1d35f705e, right?  That certainly looks harmless
> and potentially useful.  I'm +1 for back-patching.

That's the one. If we were modifying existing messages I would be 
against it, but new, infrequent (but oh so helpful) messages seem fine.

Regards,
-David