Hi, On 2024-12-14 09:29:12 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2024-Dec-11, Andres Freund wrote: > > > One thing that I think we should definitely do is to include more detail in > > the error message. mdzeroextend()'s error messages don't include how many > > blocks the relation was to be extended by. Neither mdextend() nor > > mdzeroextend() include the offset at which the extension failed. > > I proposed a patch at > https://postgr.es/m/202409110955.6njbwzm4ocus@alvherre.pgsql > > FileFallocate failure: > errmsg("could not allocate additional %lld bytes from position %lld > in file \"%s\": %m", > (long long) addbytes, (long long) seekpos, > FilePathName(v->mdfd_vfd)), > > FileZero failure: > errmsg("could not zero additional %lld bytes from position %lld file > \"%s\": %m", > (long long) addbytes, (long long) seekpos, > FilePathName(v->mdfd_vfd)),
Personally I don't like the obfuscation of "allocate" and "zero" vs just naming the function names. But I guess that's just taste thing. > I'm not sure that we need to talk about blocks, given that the > underlying syscalls don't work in blocks anyway. IMO we should just > report bytes. When looking for problems it's considerably more work with bytes, because - at least for me - the large number is hard to compare quickly and to know how aggressively we extended also requires to translate to blocks. Greetings, Andres Freund
