Re: PG17.6 wal apply bug (SIGSEGV)

Hi,

Thank you,
there still are 2 broken indexes in master DB,
one of them exactly matches the said relation 151181595.

still,
is it proper wal apply procedure, to segfault in such a case?

On 20/10/2025 20:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 1:07 PM badfilez(at)gmail(dot)com <badfilez(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>> #0 0x000000000057eff2 in _bt_restore_page (page=0x7f6f48fd1000 "", from=0x7f6fe2eccd80 "", len=<optimized out>) at nbtxlog.c:63
>> 63 itemsz = MAXALIGN(itemsz);
>> (gdb) bt full
> "itemsz = 0" suggests that the index was already corrupt, before the
> WAL record is applied.
>
> I suggest that you use contrib/amcheck (or the pg_amcheck frontend
> program) to ascertain the extent of any index corruption on this
> database.
>