Re: pgstattuple "unexpected zero page" for gist and hash indexes

Apologies, I accidentally sent my previous reply only to Michael
instead of hitting 'reply all'. Adding the contents of those messages
in the quoted text.

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 4:45 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 04:17:49PM +0530, Nitin Motiani wrote:
> > Thanks Michael. We can keep the simple change we have in v2 without
> > reporting any corruption. But perhaps we should check for the opaque
> > size mismatch for btree (as it's already done for gist and hash) to
> > keep the code consistent for all three. We can avoid any reporting or
> > further analysis but we can skip the other operations in the case of
> > size mismatch. What are your thoughts on that?
>
> You mean an check on BTPageOpaqueData with a new else branch in
> pgstat_btree_page()? Yep, let's do that as well.
> --
> Michael

Thanks Michael. I'm attaching v3 with this change.