Hi Fujii,
> But, do we really need a new test for such a small fix? > That's fair. I was the one who asked for the test, but I agree it's a lot of test code to check an LSN in an error message. I'm happy for 0001 to go in without it. Also, what do you think about 0002? It makes pg_waldump's "error in WAL record at" prefix show where reading failed, instead of the last good record. pg_rewind's extractPageMap() and pg_walinspect already work this way. We could make this master only, since it changes output people may be used to. Regards, Surya Poondla
