On 2021-Nov-23, Tom Lane wrote:
> We're *still* not out of the woods with 026_overwrite_contrecord.pl,
> as we are continuing to see occasional "mismatching overwritten LSN"
> failures, further down in the test where it tries to start up the
> standby:
Augh.
> Looking at adjacent successful runs, it seems that the exact point
> where the "missing contrecord" starts varies substantially, even after
> our previous fix to disable autovacuum in this test. How could that be?
Well, there is intentionally some variability. Maybe not as much as one
would wish, but I expect that that should explain why that point is not
always the same.
> It's probably for the best though, because I think this is exposing
> an actual bug that we would not have seen if the start point were
> completely consistent. I have not dug into the code, but it looks to
> me like if the "consistent recovery state" is reached exactly at a
> page boundary (0/1FFE000 in all these cases), then the standby expects
> that to be what the OVERWRITE_CONTRECORD record will point at. But
> actually it points to the first WAL record on that page, resulting
> in a bogus failure.
So what is happening is that we set state->overwrittenRecPtr to the LSN
of page start, ignoring the page header. Is that the LSN of the first
record in a page? I'll see if I can reproduce the problem.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La persona que no quería pecar / estaba obligada a sentarse
en duras y empinadas sillas / desprovistas, por cierto
de blandos atenuantes" (Patricio Vogel)
