Hi, On 2025-04-01 09:49:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 7:13 AM Jakub Wartak > <jakub.war...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > 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?
FWIW, I think these are all just about equally wrong. 1) doesn't allow the use to understand what could be the culprit 2*) omit that zero_damaged_pages can cause this due to the logic in mdreadv() > > Another question is should we back-patch this? I believe we should (?) > > I don't think this qualifies as a bug. The current wording isn't > factually wrong, just unhelpful. Even if it were wrong, we need a > pretty good reason to change message strings in a stable branch, > because that can break things for users who are grepping for the > current string (or a translation thereof). If an overwhelming > consensus in favor of back-patching emerges, fine, but my gut feeling > is that back-patching will make more people sad than it makes happy. I'd certainly not backpatch. Greetings, Andres Freund
