Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:13:12 +0100
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Online checksums verification in the backend
Message-ID: <20200318061312.GB58497@nol>
References: 
 <CAOBaU_aVvMjQn=ge5qPiJOPMmOj5=ii3st5Q0Y+WuLML5sR17w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoavHnO20Stahs6MPe53qBqeiaCTwsktSVd7LDW+Z9pNtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOBaU_aiAaas1SLS6erWa0cJStxSt+QBRPah16CqXZY4mATbTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191210022633.GD72921@paquier.xyz>
 <CAOBaU_YOmFfO8Ow=EScWULku7CvUiNYdx_2QS8hfi92D=tv=OQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200311071823.GA4643@nol>
 <20200316030638.GA2331@paquier.xyz>
 <20200316082122.3wr4swqvpe7j5cg5@nol>
 <20200318042047.GH214947@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200318042047.GH214947@paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 01:20:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 09:21:22AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:29:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Based on the feedback gathered on this thread, I guess that you should
> >> have a SRF returning the list of broken blocks, as well as NOTICE
> >> messages.
> >
> > The current patch has an SRF and a WARNING message, do you want an additional
> > NOTICE message or downgrade the existing one?
>
> Right, not sure which one is better, for zero_damaged_pages a WARNING
> is used.


Sorry forgot to answer that.  IMHO a WARNING is better here, as we're talking
about data corruption.  Also, a WARNING will be reported to both the client and
server logs, which sounds like a good thing.