Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log
От | David Steele |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 241ccde1-1928-4ba2-a0bb-5350f7b191a8@pgmasters.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Use of backup_label not noted in log (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/17/23 00:18, Andres Freund wrote: > > I've often had to analyze what caused corruption in PG instances, where the > symptoms match not having had backup_label in place when bringing on the > node. However that's surprisingly hard - the only log messages that indicate > use of backup_label are at DEBUG1. > > Given how crucial use of backup_label is and how frequently people do get it > wrong, I think we should add a LOG message - it's not like use of backup_label > is a frequent thing in the life of a postgres instance and is going to swamp > the log. And I think we should backpatch that addition. +1 for the message and I think a backpatch is fine as long as it is a new message. If monitoring systems can't handle an unrecognized message then that feels like a problem on their part. > Medium term I think we should go further, and leave evidence in pg_control > about the last use of ControlFile->backupStartPoint, instead of resetting it. Michael also thinks this is a good idea. > I realize that there's a discussion about removing backup_label - but I think > that's fairly orthogonal. Should we go with the pg_control approach, we should > still emit a useful message when starting in a state that's "equivalent" to > having used the backup_label. Agreed, this new message could easily be adapted to the recovery in pg_control patch. Regards, -David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: