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