On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 4:00 PM Christoph Berg <m...@debian.org> wrote: > > Re: Robert Haas > > I think that would be better than what we have now, but I still wonder > > if we should give some kind of a hint that an external process may be > > doing something to that file. Jakub and I may be biased by having just > > seen a case of exactly that in the field, but I wonder now how many > > 'data beyond EOF' messages are exactly that -- and it's not like the > > user is going to guess that 'data beyond EOF' might mean that such a > > thing occurred. > > HINT: Did anything besides PostgreSQL touch that file?
Thread bump. So we have the following candidates: 1. remove it as Andres stated: ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block 1472 of relation base/5/16387 2a. Robert's idea ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block 1472 of relation base/5/16387 HINT: This has been observed with PostgreSQL files being overwritten. 2b. Christoph's idea ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block 1472 of relation base/5/16387 HINT: Did anything besides PostgreSQL touch that file? Anything else? #1 has one advantage that we don't need to provide 11 translations inside src/backend/po/*.po (I could use google translate when proposing patch, but I do not take any responsibility for what it generates ;)) Another question is should we back-patch this? I believe we should (?) -J.
