| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| 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 23:11:04 |
| Message-ID: | aoOVCBBYyrX-EPRU@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 06:01:01PM -0500, Zsolt Parragi wrote:
> 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.
Users tend to ignore entirely WARNINGs in my experience, but it also
sounds to me that it is better to inform if the stats view has been
incremented at all even if only one page was iffy, starting at
strictly more than 0, not strictly more than 1 because the information
is still useful.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2026-08-17 23:18:00 | Re: Use WALReadFromBuffers in more places |
| Previous Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-08-17 23:01:01 | Re: pg_stat_database.checksum_failures misses single-page failures in backups |