On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:15 PM Mark Dilger
<mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Another difference I should probably mention is that a bunch of unrelated tests are failing with errors like:
>
> toast value 13465 chunk 0 has size 1995, but expected size 1996
>
> which leads me to suspect your changes to how the size is calculated.
That seems like a pretty reasonable suspicion, but I can't see the problem:
- expected_size = curchunk < endchunk ? TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE
- : VARATT_EXTERNAL_GET_EXTSIZE(ta->toast_pointer) -
(endchunk * TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE);
+ expected_size = chunk_seq < last_chunk_seq ? TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE
+ : extsize % TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE;
What's different?
1. The variables are renamed.
2. It uses a new variable extsize instead of recomputing
VARATT_EXTERNAL_GET_EXTSIZE(ta->toast_pointer), but I think that
should have the same value.
3. I used modulo arithmetic (%) instead of subtracting endchunk *
TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE.
Is TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE 1996? How long a value did you insert?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
