Hi, > > If I understand correctly, if somehow several FS blocks end up being > > zeroed (due to OS bug, bit rot, restoring from a corrupted for > > whatever reason backup, hardware failures, ...) there is non-zero > > chance that PG will interpret this as a normal situation. To my > > knowledge this is not what we typically do - typically PG would report > > an error and ask a human to figure out what happened. Of course the > > possibility of such a scenario is small, but I don't think that as > > DBMS developers we can ignore it. > > For now, let me explain the basis for this patch. The fundamental > issue is that these warnings that always appear are, in practice, not > a problem in almost all cases. Some of those who encounter them for > the first time may feel uneasy and reach out with inquiries. On the > other hand, those familiar with these warnings tend to ignore them and > only pay attention to details when actual issues arise. Therefore, the > intention of this patch is to label them as "no issue" unless a > problem is blatantly evident, in order to prevent unnecessary concern.
I agree and don't mind affecting the error message per se. However I see that the actual logic of how WAL is processed is being changed. If we do this, at very least it requires thorough thinking. I strongly suspect that the proposed code is wrong and/or not safe and/or less safe than it is now for the reasons named above. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
