| From: | Sergey Fukanchik <s(dot)fukanchik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Perform check for oversized WAL record before calculating record CRC |
| Date: | 2025-09-07 14:00:56 |
| Message-ID: | 6ee042d1-7456-4732-b1e8-602b6beafb9a@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It seems to me reasonable to move size check above CRC computation. However, it seems suspicious to me to run a test that allocates 1Gb in `make check`. Maybe, there are places that are not exercised too often. Perhaps recovery tests or something like that.
Hi Andrey,
I share your concern about memory consumption and also agree recovery
tests look like the right place for this test.
So I split the patch into two - the change proper and the converted TAP
test, guarded by PG_TEST_EXTRA. Attaching both patches.
---
Sergey
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Perform-check-for-oversized-WAL-record-before-cal.patch | text/x-patch | 2.2 KB |
| v2-0002-Add-a-TAP-test-for-oversized-WAL-records.patch | text/x-patch | 1.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2025-09-07 19:02:56 | OAuth client code doesn't work with Google OAuth |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2025-09-07 11:26:17 | Re: MergeAppend could consider sorting cheapest child path |