Re: Better HINT message for "unexpected data beyond EOF"

From: Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Better HINT message for "unexpected data beyond EOF"
Date: 2025-03-27 15:00:18
Message-ID: Z-VoAojEyBYNCEa_@msg.df7cb.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Re: Robert Haas
> I think that would be better than what we have now, but I still wonder
> if we should give some kind of a hint that an external process may be
> doing something to that file. Jakub and I may be biased by having just
> seen a case of exactly that in the field, but I wonder now how many
> 'data beyond EOF' messages are exactly that -- and it's not like the
> user is going to guess that 'data beyond EOF' might mean that such a
> thing occurred.

HINT: Did anything besides PostgreSQL touch that file?

Christoph

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-03-27 15:07:57 Re: Add Postgres module info
Previous Message Robert Haas 2025-03-27 14:55:39 Re: Better HINT message for "unexpected data beyond EOF"