On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:56 PM Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert, > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:37 PM Jeevan Ladhe >> <jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> > + if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(previous_lsn)) >> > + appendStringInfo(labelfile, "PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION: >> %X/%X\n", >> > + (uint32) (previous_lsn >> 32), (uint32) >> previous_lsn); >> > >> > May be we should rename to something like: >> > "INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION" or simply "INCREMENTAL BACKUP >> START LOCATION" >> > to make it more intuitive? >> >> So, I think that you are right that PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION might not be >> entirely clear, but at least in my view, INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL >> LOCATION is definitely not clear. This backup is an incremental >> backup, and it has a start WAL location, so you'd end up with START >> WAL LOCATION and INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION and those sound >> like they ought to both be the same thing, but they're not. Perhaps >> something like REFERENCE WAL LOCATION or REFERENCE WAL LOCATION FOR >> INCREMENTAL BACKUP would be clearer. >> > > Agree, how about INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WAL LOCATION ? > +1 for INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WA. > -- Jeevan Chalke Technical Architect, Product Development EnterpriseDB Corporation The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
