Hi, On 2019-03-26 21:01:27 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > I'm also not convinced that these changes to pg_basebackup will be free > of issues that may impact users in a negative way, making me concerned > that we're going to end up doing more harm than good with such a change > being back-patched. Simply comparing the skipped LSNs to the > end-of-backup LSN seems much less invasive when it comes to this core > code, and certainly increases the chances quite a bit that we'll detect > an issue with corruption in the LSN.
Yea, in the other thread we'd discussed that that might be the correct course for backpatch, at least initially. But I think the insert/replay LSN would be the correct LSN to compare to in the basebackup.c case? Greetings, Andres Freund
