| 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: | 2026-08-18 05:46:45 |
| Message-ID: | aoPxxZbAox38ikMN@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 08:11:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.
In order to close the loop, I have been doing some archeology.
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:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180331125404.GA20852%40nighthawk.caipicrew.dd-dns.de
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Denis Smirnov | 2026-08-18 05:47:59 | Re: Batching in executor |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-08-18 05:45:57 | Re: Introduce XID age based replication slot invalidation |