| 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: | 2026-08-17 23:01:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFNmDTKhzjDuRcrGyBGG9+wEjQMsVNPyqyZ5Vew0cyTFZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> While the report is right, the resulting patch looks incorrect to me.
> It seems to me that we should also report the warning if we have
> checksum_failures == 1
I am not sure, maybe. The original commit 6b9e875f728 only had the
plural form in it. The errmsg_plural was added as part of a message
style sweep commit in 887248e97e2d.
To me it seems like that the original intent was to only print out the
summaries (both this and the similar total_checksum_failures > 1 check
in the same file) if we have more than 1 failure. If we only have 1,
it only prints out the specific info about that failure.
If you think that's better I can simply change the 1 to 0 in this if,
and then for consistency also do the same change in the other if, but
that way we also change what warnings we print out in this case.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-08-17 23:11:04 | Re: pg_stat_database.checksum_failures misses single-page failures in backups |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-08-17 22:50:27 | Re: pg_stat_database.checksum_failures misses single-page failures in backups |