Re: pg_stat_database.checksum_failures misses single-page failures in backups

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_database.checksum_failures misses single-page failures in backups
Date: 2026-08-18 06:53:31
Message-ID: CAN4CZFNJ1obgWiquL1jfJbD1zsG5fxY-dkE-gFfhXqEENfVz7w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I can track the original code change in the v5 posted here, which has
> been using a (> 1) for the sake of the plural message, at least that
> feels like the author's intention:

I read the intention there differently, as errmsg_plural has been
available since 2009.

> I would still just adjust the one-off in the if condition at the end.
> Reporting also a WARNING even if we have 1 checksum failure feels like
> the right thing to do.

I did that in v2, I also adjusted the total warning I mentioned earlier.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Report-single-page-checksum-failures-in-pg_stat_d.patch application/octet-stream 3.4 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shveta malik 2026-08-18 06:56:40 Re: A new C function `get_partition_root`.
Previous Message Andrei Lepikhov 2026-08-18 06:31:44 Re: Allow a prosupport function to be attached to an aggregate