Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:37 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> What's gained by the logic of emitting that warning in VACUUM after a >> crash? I don't really see any robustness advantages in it.
> I don't know. I am just normally reluctant to change things > precipitously that are of long tenure. Me too, but I think Andres has a point here. Those warnings in VACUUM are ancient, probably predating the introduction of WAL :-(. At the time there was good reason to be suspicious of zeroed pages in tables. Now, though, we have (what we think is) a bulletproof crash recovery procedure in which possibly-zeroed pages are to be expected; so we're just causing users unnecessary alarm by warning about them. I think it's reasonable to, if not remove the messages entirely, at least downgrade them to a low DEBUG level. regards, tom lane