Apologies, I accidentally sent my previous reply only to Michael instead of hitting 'reply all'. Adding the contents of those messages in the quoted text.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 4:45 PM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 04:17:49PM +0530, Nitin Motiani wrote: > > Thanks Michael. We can keep the simple change we have in v2 without > > reporting any corruption. But perhaps we should check for the opaque > > size mismatch for btree (as it's already done for gist and hash) to > > keep the code consistent for all three. We can avoid any reporting or > > further analysis but we can skip the other operations in the case of > > size mismatch. What are your thoughts on that? > > You mean an check on BTPageOpaqueData with a new else branch in > pgstat_btree_page()? Yep, let's do that as well. > -- > Michael Thanks Michael. I'm attaching v3 with this change.
v3-0001-Fix-unexpected-zero-page-in-pgstattuple-for-hash-.patch
Description: Binary data
