On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> And both?
>
> I couldn't see much point of doing this, so I didn't. If you have a
> rationale for it, let's hear it.
Now that I think on it, it does not actually matter to print both.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgs
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 04/15/2015 11:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>
> >> I found this patch in my local repo that I wrote some weeks or months
> >> ago while debugging some XLog corruption problem: it was difficult to
> >> pinp
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/15/2015 11:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> I found this patch in my local repo that I wrote some weeks or months
>> ago while debugging some XLog corruption problem: it was difficult to
>> pinpoint what XLog record in a long seq
On 04/15/2015 11:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I found this patch in my local repo that I wrote some weeks or months
ago while debugging some XLog corruption problem: it was difficult to
pinpoint what XLog record in a long sequence of WAL files was causing a
problem, and the displaying the prev po
I found this patch in my local repo that I wrote some weeks or months
ago while debugging some XLog corruption problem: it was difficult to
pinpoint what XLog record in a long sequence of WAL files was causing a
problem, and the displaying the prev pointer in errcontext made finding
it much easier
