On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 4:00 PM Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Re: Robert Haas
> > I think that would be better than what we have now, but I still wonder
> > if we should give some kind of a hint that an external process may be
> > doing something to that file. Jakub and I may be biased by having just
> > seen a case of exactly that in the field, but I wonder now how many
> > 'data beyond EOF' messages are exactly that -- and it's not like the
> > user is going to guess that 'data beyond EOF' might mean that such a
> > thing occurred.
>
> HINT: Did anything besides PostgreSQL touch that file?
Thread bump. So we have the following candidates:
1. remove it as Andres stated:
ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block 1472 of relation base/5/16387
2a. Robert's idea
ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block 1472 of relation base/5/16387
HINT: This has been observed with PostgreSQL files being overwritten.
2b. Christoph's idea
ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block 1472 of relation base/5/16387
HINT: Did anything besides PostgreSQL touch that file?
Anything else? #1 has one advantage that we don't need to provide 11
translations inside src/backend/po/*.po (I could use google translate
when proposing patch, but I do not take any responsibility for what it
generates ;))
Another question is should we back-patch this? I believe we should (?)
-J.
