| From: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Odd usage of errmsg_internal in bufmgr.c |
| Date: | 2026-02-12 18:34:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFPugfT_HRsvO1-BbA6RYHuUPgJwR7BGdF8ECjgLsj=01g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Perhaps gratuitously so ... For instance, AFAICS the first block could
> be:
I also tried to play with a few variants for this, and I reached the
same conclusion: the cleanest version is when we simply repeat the
messages.
If we unify the messages a bit (the zeroing singular form is a bit
different compared to the others), we could introduce a helper
function but it doesn't seem that readable to me.
Also:
if (result.status == PGAIO_RS_ERROR)
{
Assert(!zeroed_any); /* can't have invalid pages when zeroing them */
- affected_count = zeroed_or_error_count;
- msg_one = _("invalid page in block %u of relation \"%s\"");
* The comment after assert seems wrong, isn't it backwards? Can't have
zeroed pages with failed reads
* Is it really okay to classify read errors as "invalid pages"? This
is a read failure, so I imagine this can happen if we lost a disk
because of faulty/flaky hardware, or a user unmounting a partition, or
moving the file, or anything like that, so we weren't able to actually
try to read it. Shouldn't the error say something about read failure
or unreadable pages instead?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-02-12 18:51:33 | Re: Improve OAuth discovery logging |
| Previous Message | Alexandre Felipe | 2026-02-12 18:08:26 | Re: Incremental View Maintenance, take 2 |