Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > At Wed, 2 Oct 2019 19:24:02 -0400, Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in >> * Tom Lane (tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >>> Yeah, those messages are all pretty ancient, from when WAL was new and not >>> to be trusted much. Perhaps the thing to do is move the existing info >>> into DETAIL and make the primary message be something like "reached >>> apparent end of WAL stream". >> Yes, +1 on that. > What do you think about this? It seems overcomplicated. Why do you need to reach into emode_for_corrupt_record's private state? I think we could just change the message text without that, and leave the emode machinations as-is. I don't understand the restriction to "if (RecPtr == InvalidXLogRecPtr)" either? Maybe that's fine but the comment fails to explain it. Another point is that, as the comment for emode_for_corrupt_record notes, we don't really want to consider that we've hit end-of-WAL when reading any source except XLOG_FROM_PG_WAL. So I think the change of message ought to include a test of the source, but this doesn't. Also, the business with an "operation" string violates the message translatability guideline about "don't assemble a message out of phrases". If we want to have that extra detail, it's better just to make three separate ereport() calls with separately translatable messages. Also, it seems wrong that the page TLI check, just below, is where it is and isn't part of the main set of page header sanity checks. That's sort of unrelated to this patch, except not really, because shouldn't a failure of that test also be treated as an "end of WAL" condition? regards, tom lane
