On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 7:13 AM Jakub Wartak <jakub.war...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Thread bump. So we have the following candidates: > > 1. remove it as Andres stated: > ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block 1472 of relation base/5/16387 > > 2a. Robert's idea > ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block 1472 of relation base/5/16387 > HINT: This has been observed with PostgreSQL files being overwritten. > > 2b. Christoph's idea > ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block 1472 of relation base/5/16387 > HINT: Did anything besides PostgreSQL touch that file?
I don't think I proposed that exact phrasing - I prefer (2b) over (2a), although I would replace "besides" with "other than". > Another question is should we back-patch this? I believe we should (?) I don't think this qualifies as a bug. The current wording isn't factually wrong, just unhelpful. Even if it were wrong, we need a pretty good reason to change message strings in a stable branch, because that can break things for users who are grepping for the current string (or a translation thereof). If an overwhelming consensus in favor of back-patching emerges, fine, but my gut feeling is that back-patching will make more people sad than it makes happy. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
