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
