Subject: Re: Make mesage at end-of-recovery less scary.
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
References: <20200305.160650.1027844943773682801.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <4a9fc5b1-34c8-46ec-9b71-d4763d70311d@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20200323194736.uijmupfle2ccvyah@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20200324.105250.1584846618506385212.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <613cc9dc-1721-eb73-70a5-ab5b4a7a5aee@2ndquadrant.com>
 <CA+TgmoZBqiN5VpuE6E0iCU_P+r8yo-EKuedx2RNr0Uz_cBHfSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAaqYe88ENQp=ksG4c1J-Mi1axM5dtO+48x8tC3afE-_Z_qFSw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Message-ID: <b432bad3-e379-8a3a-6a35-1d47c116f2de@pgmasters.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:14:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAaqYe88ENQp=ksG4c1J-Mi1axM5dtO+48x8tC3afE-_Z_qFSw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b432bad3-e379-8a3a-6a35-1d47c116f2de%40pgmasters.net>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Kyotaro,

On 3/27/20 10:25 PM, James Coleman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:41 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm just spitballing here, but it would be really good if there's a
>> way to know definitely whether or not you should be scared. Corrupted
>> WAL segments are definitely a thing that happens, but retries are a
>> lot more common.
> 
> First, I agree that getting enough context to say precisely is by far the ideal.
> 
> That being said, as an end user who's found this surprising -- and
> momentarily scary every time I initially scan it even though I *know
> intellectually it's not* -- I would find Peter's suggestion a
> significant improvement over what we have now. I'm fairly certainly my
> co-workers on our database team would also. Knowing that something is
> at least not always scary is good. Though I'll grant that this does
> have the negative in reverse: if it actually is a scary
> situation...this mutes your concern level. On the other hand,
> monitoring would tell us if there's a real problem (namely replication
> lag), so I think the trade-off is clearly worth it.
> 
> How about this minor tweak:
> HINT:  This is expected if this is the end of currently available WAL.
> Otherwise, it could indicate corruption.

Any thoughts on the suggestions for making the messaging clearer?

Also, the patch no longer applies: 
http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2490.log.

Marking this Waiting on Author.

Regards,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net