| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, deniel1495(at)mail(dot)ru, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, tejeswarm(at)hotmail(dot)com, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Wood <hexexpert(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corruption during WAL replay |
| Date: | 2022-03-25 04:08:20 |
| Message-ID: | 3185871.1648181300@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> The only thing I can really conclude here is that we apparently end up with
> the same checksum for exactly the modifications we are doing? Just on those
> two damn instances? Reliably?
IIRC, the table's OID or relfilenode enters into the checksum.
Could it be that assigning a specific OID to the table allows
this to happen, and these two animals are somehow assigning
that OID while others are using some slightly different OID?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-03-25 04:16:07 | Re: A test for replay of regression tests |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-03-25 04:06:21 | Re: A test for replay of regression tests |